Disrupting heterosexual space? : the implementation of a campus Positive Space Campaign
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing on a growing literature on the interconnection of queer theory, sexuality and space, this thesis critically assesses the development, implementation and impact of a campus-based Positive Space Campaign aimed at raising the visibility and number of respectful, supportive, educational and welcoming spaces for lesbian, gay, bi, trans, two-spirited, queer and questioning (LGBTQ) students staff and faculty. The analysis, based on participatory action research (PAR), interrogates the extent to which the Positive Space Campaign challenges heteronormativity on campus. I contend that the Campaign, in its attempt to challenge dominant notions of sex, gender and sexuality, disrupts heterosexual space. Further, as I consider the meanings of 'queer', I consider the extent to which Positive Space Campaigns may be 'queering' space, by contributing to an 'imagined' campus space free of sexual and gender-based discrimination. The case study contributes to queer theory, the literature on sexuality and space, the literature on queer organizing in educational spaces and to broader queer organizing efforts in Canada.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| 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 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".