Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation is an argument in defence of skin-to-skin contact between black queer men. Using interventions in public health as a point of departure, I consider the impressions of physical touch on the bodies and behaviours of black queer men. More specifically, I examine how fleshly contact features as a core element in maintaining the breath of black queer life and the importance of touch in establishing queer systems of kinship and care. This project also proposes that black diasporic peoples approach feeling differently in the wake of Atlantic enslavement. I define these practices of feeling as black synesthetics to account for the rich and multisensorial forms of engagement that inform black folks’ relationships with each other and other life forms. This dissertation includes four chapters that take the reader through multiple temporalities and geographies, necessarily so considering that the work also gestures to the relationship between flesh and memory over time and across space. I point to key crises that have come to define black queer life (e.g. Atlantic enslavement, the 1980s-90s AIDS crisis) to understand how black queer men used touch—the stark meeting of their various parts of their flesh with the parts of flesh of other men—as a life-sustaining practice during moments where contact between black people was imagined as a primary cause of death. I draw on a wide assortment of texts (i.e. personal letters, poems, films, photographs, surgeon’s journals) across multiple fields to capture the nuanced practices of relation that make black queer life possible. These stories, woven together as they are, allow us to approach the question of care more capaciously, to imagine the lives and health of black queer men in ways that challenge our assumptions about what is needed or possible to live a full life.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 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".