“Diversity or whatever”: A look at queer DIY organizing in Edmonton arts scenes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the ways some queer collectives have organized DIY (Do-It-Yourself) festivals in Edmonton to address the oppression faced by their communities in arts and music scenes. Focusing my research specifically on the Brown, Black, and Fierce! Collective (BB&F) and Not Enough Fest Edmonton (NEF), my primary goals are to explore the ways in which communities are negotiated through social media and their media appearances during the organizing process, and how organizers make sense of community or of their own personal experience. Through my involvement as an organizer with BB&F, and my experience as a community member at NEF 2016, I gained a personal knowledge of the organizing process required to make such events happen; yet, I still struggled to make sense of this organizing experience. Thus, figuring out how organizers go from a small group of individuals to what looks like a cohesive collective surrounded by a supportive and engaged community became a pressing question. On one level, this thesis aims to answer this question for myself. On another level, it will offer insight into the organizing process of DIY festivals as well as queer cultural production as resistance in a city like Edmonton. Framed by theories of community and grassroots organizing and gender politics of identity, this research comprises three facets: a discursive analysis of media released by the collectives, an analysis of semi-constructed interviews with organising members of said collectives, and an analysis of social media discourse.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
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".