The Personal Experience of Community Among Urban Gay Men, Lesbians, and Bisexuals: Melting Pot or Mosaic?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective “Gay community” is often conceptualized as a “melting pot” in which gay, lesbian, and bisexual (GLB) persons are united and integrated into one sexual minority community. Evidence, however, indicates that GLB community may also be conceptualized as a mosaic of sexual minority communities with differing goals and ideologies. We test the validity of these conceptions of community with respect to two facets of the personal experiences of GLB individuals: socializing with GLB persons and GLB community cohesion perceptions. Methods Analyses of the 2005 Sex and Love survey of New York City area GLB persons. Results GLB persons tended to socialize most with their own sexual identity group. Compared to gay men, only bisexual women reported higher perceptions of GLB community cohesion. Conclusion Our findings indicate the presence of a mosaic sexual minority community. The extent of sexual‐identity‐group‐specific socializing patterns suggests that personal perceptions of GLB cohesion may either be idealized rather than based on routine interactions or reflect assessments of within‐group (not across‐group) cohesion.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it