MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2561384693 · doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcw139

Recognition and Legitimisation of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) at the UN: A Critical Systemic Analysis

2016· article· en· W2561384693 on OpenAlexaff
Nick J. Mulé, Cameron McKenzie, Maryam Khan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe British Journal of Social Work · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAfrican Sexualities and LGBTQ+ Issues
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQueerHuman rightsGender studiesSexual orientationPolitical scienceTransgenderPerspective (graphical)Gender identitySociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The UN often plays a progressive role in challenging oppressive policies and laws globally from a human rights perspective. Since approximately 2005, there has been increased LGBTQI rights recognition within various UN bodies such as: the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the Security Council, UN Women and Special Rapporteurs. Despite such achievements, these UN bodies often experience challenges in legitimising such recognition of LGBTQI individuals and communities. This paper critically analyses the effectiveness and relevance of UN bodies in addressing and advocating for progressive and equitable policies related to LGBTQI people through examination of the following: LGBTQI advocacy at the UN; internal bureaucracies of the UN and their affiliates that interfere with LGBTQI rights; and the role of member states. A critical social work lens frames the paper based on a queer liberation perspective, which is inclusive of sexual and gender diversities beyond dominant heterosexual and binaristic constructions (Mulé, 2008, 2012). Such perspectives contribute to resisting and challenging norms that make static the identities, recognition and legitimisation of LGBTQI at the UN.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.506
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations14
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe British Journal of Social WorkSame topicAfrican Sexualities and LGBTQ+ IssuesFrench-language works237,207