Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the 1990s, which also saw the development of queer theory and politics, a form of sexual politics has emerged that has been highly influential in redefining the political goals and strategies associated with lesbian and gay activism. Rather than critiquing social institutions and practices that have historically excluded them, as did lesbian and gay movements in the 1960s and 70s, over the last two decades ‘LGBT’ politics has increasingly been about seeking inclusion into mainstream culture through demanding equal rights to citizenship. (It is recognised that there are specific issues for B and T; however the focus of this paper will be on LG.) To some extent one could see these contemporary movements as harking back to an earlier period. Normalising arguments were evident in the 1950s and 60s when, on the whole, activists adopted the political strategies of a minority group seeking tolerance from the heterosexual majority. More recent citizenship demands have, to a degree, been answered via a raft of recent legislation in the UK including the Adoption and Children Act 2002, Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003, Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Civil Partnership Act 2004, and by associated changes in policy making and practice that emphasize ‘Equality and Diversity’. These developments have important implications for understandings of citizenship, democracy and sexuality and, as we argue, the changing nature of sexualised forms of prejudice and in/tolerance. In considering these issues, this paper will also discuss how these changes are related to processes of privatization and individualization associated with neoliberalism. To illustrate the discussion the paper draw on findings from an ESRC funded study of sexualities equalities initiatives in the UK.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 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 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".