Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender psychology: an international conversation among researchers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reports on a conversation between 12 lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) psychologists at the first international LGBT Psychology Summer Institute at the University of Michigan in August 2009. Participants discuss how their work in LGBT psychology is affected by national policy, funding and academic contexts and the transnational influence of the US-based stigma model of LGBT psychology. The challenges and possibilities posed by internationalism are discussed with reference to the dominance of the United States, the cultural limits of terms such as ‘lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender’, intergenerational communication between researchers and the role of events such as the Summer Institute in creating an international community of LGBT psychologists.
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 | 0.033 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.046 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".