Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the controversy that has attached to 'queer' over the past few years in gay, lesbian, bi, and trans communities both inside and outside the academy, I initially approached this book with apprehension. Kerr and her contributors, however, make the problematics of 'queer' very much their subject matter, though not always in overt ways. The book can be divided roughly into three sections: early scholarly work in Canada on gay theatre, including a handful of papers from the 1990s; work from 2001 to 2005 on topics that range from gay and lesbian theatre to lesbian performance art, drag performance of all kinds, and trans performance; and the commissioned essays (all dating from 2007). This last group provides a context, as well as a history, for the earlier work in the book, and I would recommend that those less familiar with the subject matter start here. Among the commissions, work by J. Paul Halferty, Sky Gilbert, and David Allan King offers three different perspectives on the shifting meaning of the term queer in Canadian performance circles since the founding of the iconic Buddies in Bad Times Theatre in 1979, Kerr and Louise Forsyth think retrospectively about lesbian representation in the Canadian theatre market over the last three decades, Ann Holloway does dyke comedy, and Frances Latchford and J. Bobby Noble reread contemporary drag. The collection ends with Mariko Tamaki's brief, loving paean to the Cheap Queers cabaret, a wonderful charge of utopic hope for the future.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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".