MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409059728 · doi:10.1080/01956051.2025.2480532

Writing Gender, Writing Violence: Will Seefried on <i>Lilies Not for Me</i>

2024· article· en· W4409059728 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Popular Film and Television · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicModern American Literature Studies
Canadian institutionsCape Breton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyReport writingComputer scienceLibrary science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At the end of Will Seefried’s new feature film Lilies Not for Me (2024), Owen (Fionn O’Shea), a writer, meets up with his former lover, Philip (Robert Aramayo), a doctor determined to cure him of his homosexuality. A subsequent scene shows Philip operating on the distressed Owen, who has protested he isn’t ill. Seefried’s film recovers two overlooked chapters in LGBTQ history, two different procedures meant to “cure” homosexuality: one, like Philip’s, that involves testicle transplants, and another, where gay men had “dates” with young nurses at institutions to learn about heterosexual courtship. A title card will reveal, near the end of the film, that “[a]n unreported number of homosexual men were subjected to testicular transplants in the 1910s and 1920s.” This work has been discredited. Seefried’s film is a critical hit. The film had its premiere in competition at the Edinburgh International Film Festival and it went on to earn the Prix du Jury at the Univerciné Film Festival. In this interview, Seefried and I discuss the making of this film.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.901
Threshold uncertainty score0.523

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it