MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097429184 · doi:10.1080/10538720802690001

An Academic Course That Teaches Heterosexual Students to be Allies to LGBT Communities: A Qualitative Analysis

2009· article· en· W2097429184 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Ji, Steve N. Du Bois, Patrick Finnessy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransgenderLesbianCredibilityHomosexualityIdentity (music)PsychologySexual identityGender studiesMulticulturalismHeteronormativityQualitative researchSexual orientationSocial identity theoryGender identityQueer theoryMinority stressPedagogySociologySocial psychologySexual minorityHuman sexualityPolitical scienceSocial groupSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A theory of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) ally identity development integrated the following theories—multicultural counseling theory (MCT), self-concept formation theory (SCFT), and social identity theory (SIT)—to design a course to train heterosexual students to be allies to LGBT communities. Students participated in interviews and activities with LGBT persons, presented seminars on LGBT topics, and wrote papers about these experiences. An analysis of their reactions suggested that initially, students perceived themselves as lacking credibility to be allies. After interacting with LGBT communities, students gained the knowledge, attitudes, and skills they needed to be confident in supporting and advocating for LGBT persons.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.171
GPT teacher head0.558
Teacher spread0.387 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations46
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Gay & Lesbian Social ServicesSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207