Bibliographic record
Abstract
While intersex studies and activism understandably focus on violence, trauma and anger to fight against the myriad forms of interphobia, various intersex people, scholars and activists seem to be turning to joy to resist deficit frameworks. Responding to this turn, our introduction to the special issue ‘On Intersex Joy’ unpacks and theorises the potential of placing intersex studies in conversation with feminist theorisations of joy and happiness. Intersex and anti-interphobic perspectives and testimonies can open up a well-spring of ideas in feminist thinking about joy and happiness. Some of the questions we ask include: How might critical intersex studies scholars and intersex activists/advocates prompt feminist scholars to rethink or reimagine happiness? How do intersex studies scholars’, activists’ and advocates’ understandings and experiences of joy challenge interphobia? How does intersex joy interrupt the presumption that intersex people's lives are always and already doom and gloom unless they conform to endonormativity?
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.045 | 0.012 |
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".