How childish! Queering ‘youth’ and some other of the mutual challenges of queer and education research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Queer/ed children and young people inhabit a space that seems nicely delineated by shamed biographies, fearful prospects and ignorance. In mainstream accounts, queer/ed children and young people are often un/represented through invisibility or drama, between exoticism and pity. ‘Children’ and notions of ‘the best interest of the child’ are used to dramatize and limit societal negotiations of sexuality (Pellegrini, 2009). Similarly, the riskiness of ‘youth’ offers space for reflection (Rasmussen, 2006). Within schools, young people are constructed entirely as students and as citizens-to-be, in the future tense (Edelman, 2004; Pellegrini, 2008), as well as in need of protection (Rofes, 2005) . Yet it is the ‘universal’ child who is inscribed in this future (Muñoz, 2007; Pellegrini, 2008). In the societies I am most familiar with, Sweden, Germany and Canada, young people are not full subjects ’right now’, but can only wait for ’the future’ to fully participate in the society they are trained for. Whithin queer research, children and young people have for a long time played a minor part (Driver, 2008; Epstein, O’Flynn, & Telford, 2009; Halberstam, 2008b; Kosofsky Sedgwick, 1991). With this paper, I will engage the (no) future debate with queer youth and education research, by problematizing the discrepancy between responsibility and solidarity and the task to question our own assumptions of a queer political project (Halberstam, 2008a). How is it possible to balance the obvious need for remedial intervention and the equally important need to question stabilizing notions of ‘children’ and ‘youth’?
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".