Clandestine Existences and Secret Research: Eliminating Official Discrimination in the Canadian Military and Going Public in Academia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 1990s was a notable decade for lesbians and gays in the Canadian military. Two important changes were the 1992 elimination of the official policy permitting discrimination against homosexual service members, and the 1996 introduction of benefits to same-sex partners. These changes radically influenced the psychological day-to-day reality of lesbian and gay military members. Yet, given the military culture, lesbian and gay members only began to come out in significant numbers at the turn of the century. This article presents an overview of our experience with researching the history of lesbians and gays in the Canadian military during the late 1990s and early years of the new century. It reveals the early clandestine nature of our research, and recounts some of the trials, tribulations, resistance, and successes we encountered when dealing with ethics boards and funding sources. It also describes our relationship with the media and how the military actively took steps to stall our efforts. We draw parallels between our experiences as researchers, and those of the lesbian service-members we were interviewing.
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 | 0.018 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.103 | 0.069 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".