'Gay marriage', lesbian\n wedding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper juxtaposes analysis of the current prominence of the debate over 'gay marriage' with a story of one lesbian wedding.It contextualises non-heterosexual marriages with an historical account of female-female marriages suggesting that they both are part of a long history and an entirely new phenomenon.In particular the paper draws on Canadian sociologist Mariana Valverde's ( 2006) claim that we are seeing a historically unique sexual object/subject -'the respectable same sex couple'.It suggests that the conditions for the emergence of this new entity lie in neo-liberal economics and politics, the practices of identityconferring consumption in particular, as well as in the efforts of gay and lesbian and other activists and those keen to live the life of 'the respectable same sex couple'.The paper draws on Judith Butler's analysis of 'gay marriage' to urge caution and critical thinking in relation to the state, the site to which most campaigning on gay marriage is directed, and draws attention in particular to the racialised nature of the state in Australia.It concludes, however, with a return to the singular lesbian wedding to argue that the effects of any one embodiment of new or transitional social and cultural forms cannot be contained by any one categorisation.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".