The Joy of Queer Science Fiction Reading, or: Will Queers Destroy Science Fiction?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper seeks to examine the connections between “queer reading” and “science fiction reading” from the perspective of readers’ recollections of their juvenile experiences of “looking for clues” in queer sf narratives. Using Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick’s concept of reparative reading, I discuss the idea of queer adolescent reading as a possibly transformative experience that offers exciting theoretical opportunities for academic scholarship on the fantastic. By turning attention to selected testaments of adolescent queer readerly experiences, written by both writers and fans, I hope to demonstrate both the personal (individual) and collective nature of queer self-recognition through these intense and affective engagements with sf texts. A closer examination of a collection of short essays in which authors reflect on the provocative idea of “queers destroying sf,”also based on individual recollections of engaging with sf as young readers, expands the discussion to incorporate fan activity and the question of queer canon-forming.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".