Bibliographic record
Abstract
Book synopsis: Queering the Interior problematizes the familiar space of 'home', exploring how queer men and women experience domestic life and unveiling the detail and complexity of queer home making. \n \nThe book follows an innovative, unusual structure: divided into two sections, Upstairs and Downstairs, each of the nine chapters examine a different room or space inside the home. Our journey starts in the entryway and continues through the living room, dining room, kitchen, garden, bathroom/toilets, bedroom, closets, to the nursery. Each room is examined through the lens of specialists from a wide range of disciplines. Drawing upon a variety of methods – including case studies, spatial analysis, interviews and a photo essay – contributors from the UK, Australia, Canada, and the United States present detailed, grounded work which is rare to find in heavily theorised fields such as gender studies and queer theory. \n \nA highly creative approach to queer analysis of domestic spaces, Queering the Interior makes an important contribution to fields such as gender studies, cultural studies, design, architecture, anthropology, sociology, and cultural geography.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 teacher head, 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".