Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the positive and negative workplace experiences of gay men that they perceive to be a consequence of their sexual identity. Design/methodology/approach This paper uses in-depth interviews of a diverse group of university educated white collar men employed full-time in the public and private sector. Its findings are based on a thematic content analysis of these interviews. Findings Despite experiencing some negative consequences of being out at work, their positive and neutral experiences show encouraging signs of increasingly tolerant workplaces. Some of the challenges encountered that respondents believe to be a consequence of their sexual identity are, however, not dissimilar to those faced by workers with non-traditional families. Research limitations/implications As with any small sample exploratory qualitative research, this paper’s findings cannot necessarily be generalized to larger populations. The uniqueness of the sample (ethnically/culturally homogenous, university educated, public/private sector employees, residents of medium-sized Canadian city) allow for display of certain experiences not representative of the population at large. Originality/value This paper contributes to the relatively small but growing body of research on the experience of sexual minorities in the workplace. Its findings challenging the notion that sexual minorities are uniquely advantaged in the workplace, and that research on sexual minorities in the workplace is misguided in focusing on the problematic aspects of sexual identity/orientation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".