“Is it good or bad to do anal?”: Failures in queer joy and sexuality education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Where does queer joy fail in the sexuality education classroom? In this article, we work through the productive problematic of employing a queer and pleasure-centered approach to teaching sexuality education in New Brunswick, Canada. Engaging participatory visual research methods and queer joy alongside 60 sexuality education teachers in five separate art-making workshops and online interviews, we describe the conditions when teachers seemed unable to access the language of queer joy, like when they teach in a conservative space, encounter shame and sex negativity, or when they lack the resources and guidance to feel confident to teach sexuality education. We propose that queer joy is a worldmaking project in sexuality education classrooms—that is most often experienced in tandem with resistance—and offers a futurity queered toward something joyfully different, including when it fails.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.065 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".