Space, place, gender, and sexuality : situational gender in four coffee houses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this dissertation, I explore the notion of situational gender in four coffee houses. Drawing on recent theoretical contributions by Barrie Thorne (1993) and Jacob Hale (1997) I determine the ways in which gender changes salience, as well as how gender shifts for individuals in these specific social settings. The crux of my research question focuses on determining the fluidity of gender in everyday life by highlighting the importance of situation while still maintaining a deep understanding of how gender operates as a major social structure. I draw on recent theoretical notions in gender performance, queer theory, and postmodern theory to examine gender at the structural, interactional, and individual level in four coffeehouses in two different cities. I engage in two qualitative techniques, participant observation and in-depth interviews in these four sites, and analyze the interactions, as well as the thoughts, experiences, and behaviors of individuals who use these spaces regularly, in order to determine how gender and sexual norms differ from place to place. I find that social settings, even ones that are very similar to each other, differ in terms of their rigidity of how they structure gender. While the structural dimension is important in terms of the rigidity of gender, interactions also have an impact on shaping how people behave. Both structure and interactions create specific dynamics that have an impact on who might feel comfortable within a particular place as well as how they might behave. The personal dimensions of gender, including identity, presentation, and behavior, are the final factor examined here, and these are structured in part by socialization, and also the ways in which particular spaces allow for, or limit, how people can present their gender. Those spaces that have highly rigid expectations around gender are more likely to police alternative codes of gender, while those that have less rigid expectations allow for a greater diversity of presentation. While gender is an important aspect, sexuality plays a key role, in helping to construct both how and why people do gender the way that they do.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".