How to Repeat Silence: HIV/AIDS, Queer History, and Youth Fiction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How to Repeat Silence: HIV/AIDS, Queer History, and Youth in Fiction addresses the substantial gaps, omissions, and inaccuracies in how HIV/AIDS has been represented in young adult literature (YA), particularly since the advent of antiretrovirals in the mid–nineties. Utilizing creative fiction, I reframe the narrative that HIV/AIDS is a historical issue bearing no impact on individuals in the present, showcasing realistic risks of transmission and informing on modern HIV education. This project’s creative component, How to Repeat Silence, a YA novel, aims to connect young adults more intimately, and realistically, with HIV/AIDS, through the contemporary first–person story of Gabriel “Gabe” Peters – a seventeen–year–old transgender boy newly diagnosed with HIV. Upon his diagnosis he learns that his late uncle, whom he named himself for, passed away due to AIDS complications and not cancer like he thought. The novel follows Gabe as he and his family take a trip to Vancouver to learn more about Gabe’s uncle just one month prior to the thirtieth anniversary memorial they’re supposed to host. Amid connecting with old family friends, Gabe must deal with his feelings surrounding his own diagnosis, his unfolding family drama, and the secrets he’s keeping from his best friend to come to terms with what being HIV–positive means for him and his family. This project makes additional strides within young adult literature through its inclusion of a trans protagonist and queer family members, paying homage to the ways queer communities were impacted by the initial AIDS crisis in North America while retaining focus on the present. The exegesis of this project contextualizes the creative choices made through close analysis of the field of YA HIV/AIDS literature, particularly through which characters have HIV/AIDS, how these characters contracted the illness, what happens to them at the end of their stories, and what that collective narrative says about HIV/AIDS messages. An urgent and hopeful work, this project provides a fresh perspective on how we talk about HIV/AIDS, both with teenagers and culturally.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".