Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation foregrounds queer engagement with the law as it pertains to human reproduction in the twenty-first century, entreating us to reassess how our understandings of law and queer intersect. The work proceeds in three parts, each one synthesizing and developing a series of analytical principles from queer scholarship around three objects of research—borders, time, and affect—to critically analyze different aspects of reproductive rights: from access to assisted reproductive technologies; to parental determination in families where children are conceived through such technologies; and the threshold between life and death, where birth and mortality meet. Two broad propositions are advanced through this analysis. The first is that intangible aspects of our social lives—mobility through and against borders, temporality, and affective embodiments—do not function in the background but form the very medium through which the constitutive role of the law, as it pertains to individuals’ mindsets, meaning-making, and institutionalized power-structures, is activated. Notably, borders, time, and affect become the conditions under which legal possibilities are opened or foreclosed, while providing insights into how legal structures—regulatory avenues, rights reasoning, and rhetorical strategies—could be more responsive to the nuanced needs of diverse familial configurations. The second proposition is that queer is a multifaceted stance: queer exists not in the binary opposition of inclusion and exclusion but in the possibility space, as an investment in subversion that has the potential to generate alternative forms of being in the world. And queer, which is mistakenly assumed to be applicable primarily to non-normative sexual or gender identities, both includes and transcends matters of sex and gender. Grounded in these two propositions, this work exhorts us to keep exploring the yet-to-be-known potential of the queer perspective as a powerful methodological tool in the arsenal of critical legal analysis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".