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
In 1996-97 the author interviewed 73 civic leaders in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, on their attitudes toward gay rights. Twelve respondents opposed gay rights, 40 were moderately favorable to gay rights, and 21 were strongly favorable. Almost all favored basic equality rights (education, housing, employment), and only 10 said they had difficulty with gay sexuality. Twenty-seven volunteered a concern with gay "flaunting," but this did not mean that they necessarily opposed gay rights. Respondents had the most difficulty accepting the rights of gays to marry and to adopt children, although almost all of those who opposed gay marriages agreed with the idea of a legal domestic partnership. Most agreed that children should be taught about homosexuality in schools. These 73 civic leaders reflect the rapidly changing attitudes to gay rights in Canada as a whole. Their more favorable attitudes were often a consequence of learning that someone close to them was gay or lesbian. They also responded to changes in religious teaching. Most respondents, including recent immigrants, were influenced by the dominant Canadian values of equality, respect for privacy, and respect for diversity. In general, the process these civic leaders were undergoing was one of humanizing gays, no longer thinking of them as the Other. In their view, human rights for gays did not mean mere formal equality, but rather concern and respect for gays.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it