MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W830529306

Teaching sex, queering 'youth'? Thinking about education through sexularism and homonationalism. Lecture series of the Centre for Women’s and Gender Studies, University of British Columbia, Canada. 2010-10-13

2010· article· en· W830529306 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Irina Schmitt

Bibliographic record

VenueLund University Publications (Lund University) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical Gender and Feminism Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGender studiesSociologyProblematizationQueerHuman sexualityQueer theoryThe ImaginaryPoliticsSecularismMedia studiesPsychologyPolitical scienceEpistemologyPsychoanalysis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In political debates, ‘children’ and notions of ‘the best interest of the child’ are used to dramatize and limit societal negotiations of sexuality and sexualities (Pellegrini, 2009). At the same time, “There has been a tendency amongst those who research marginalized youth to view social groups or identities as fixed units of analysis” (Loutzenheiser, 2007). With my presentation, I will engage notions of ‘youth’ with Joan W. Scott’s concept of sexularism (Scott, 2009) and Jasbir K. Puar’s problematization of homonationalism. Scott’s sexularism is a reflection that of secularism’s cultural indebtedness to specifically gendered Christian cultural histories and frameworks. Homonationalism addresses how queer subjects actively enter into the imaginary of the nation, and how the nation is using its imagining of queer communities in the intensification of power (Puar, 2007). How can these concepts help in reading and analysing education frameworks, and in analysing notions of ‘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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score0.125

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.035
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLund University Publications (Lund University)Same topicHistorical Gender and Feminism StudiesFrench-language works237,207