Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nudism is a social practice wherein people are naked together. At its core, nudism holds that being naked is not inherently sexual; that is, the naked body is natural and instead is made sexual. What, then, might an erection mean or signify at the nudist resort of camp? What happens if a man has an erection? This article explores discussions of the erection in nudist publications. I show how nudist writings address the fear of erection by holding on to the principle that nudism is not sexual and, second, that should an erection arise, readers are provided with helpful hints and tips about what to do. The erection presents a unique challenge to nudism because the erection, like nudism, is neither inherently nor essentially sexual and instead can be a physiological reaction. While many publications debated nudism and erections, only one publisher dared to challenge the pictorial conventions and opted to publish the erect penis. I argue that in so doing, this publisher challenged the norms of nudist ethics but also ultimately contributed to the downfall of nudist magazines.
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 | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".