Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chapter 7, Be Careful about the Publisher, examines how the diverse sources, distribution networks, and audiences associated with sexology undermined Havelock Ellis’s attempts to frame his book on homosexuality with John Addington Symonds, Sexual Inversion (1897) , as a serious medical work, and led to its appearance in the obscenity trial R. v. Bedborough (1898). Authorities charged Bedborough aiming to break up a radical group, but sexologists and their allies framed the trial as an ignorant attack on scientific progress. Elaborating on strategies pioneered by birth-controllers, they argued that the censorship of “naturalistic” sexual expression had mired society in sexual ignorance, fostering “abnormal” sexual behaviour and an appetite for pornography, the rightful target of obscenity laws. In positioning their own work as vital to society and pornography as a product of sexual science’s suppression, they obfuscated ways in which early sexologists relied on pornographers and their products. By examining sexologists’ attempts to navigate these issues, this chapter further demonstrates how arguments about obscenity were used tactically to sanitize sexual knowledge and its producers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.110 | 0.081 |
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".