MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410777045 · doi:10.1177/3033371251328043

Sexual Projects, Sexual Formations, and the Muslim Phantasm: Unpacking the Global Gender Backlash

2025· article· en· W4410777045 on OpenAlexafffund
Fauzia Husain, Sofia Seer

Bibliographic record

VenueSex & Sexualities · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSex work and related issues
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsUnpackingBacklashGender studiesSociologyPhilosophyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay argues that Muslim sexuality provides a crucial foundation for a long-overdue postcolonial reckoning in sociology-one made urgent by the intensifying global backlash against feminist values. The global backlash mobilizes reactionary ideologies to distort gender into a terrifying phantasm that mobilizes contradictory yet effective meanings and feelings. To unpack the forces driving this phantasm, we turn to a parallel historical construct-the Muslim phantasm-which is similarly entangled with gender anxieties and offers a critical analytical resource. To this end, we propose two complementary frameworks: sexual projects and sexual formations. These frameworks are ideally suited for deconstructing these phantasms, mapping the affective and discursive landscapes that sustain them, identifying the actors who deploy them, and examining how others navigate their consequences. Applying these frameworks enables scholars to trace connections between local and global sexual formations, analyze Muslim resistance to reductionist representations, and understand how their sexual projects reshape broader sexual landscapes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.054
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSex & SexualitiesSame topicSex work and related issuesFrench-language works237,207