Чинники залучення батьків гомосексуальних дітей до ЛГБТ-руху в Україні
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although, compared to the previous century, the attitudes of many democratic societies to the LGBT \ncommunity has become more tolerant, the problem of homophobia is still relevant in the world. This is one \nof the reasons why parents stand together in groups in defense of their LGBT children to change this attitude \nand support of other mothers and fathers. \nCurrently in many Western countries the movement of parents of homosexual children, actively operates, \noften on the national level. Among the largest and most famous NGOs are Parents and Friends of Lesbians \nand Gays (PFLAG) in the USA, PFLAG Canada, FFLAG (Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) in \nGreat Britain, AGEDO (Associazione genitori, parenti e amici di omosessuali) in Italy, BEFAH \n(Bundesverband der Eltern, Freunde und Angehörige von Homosexuellen) in Germany, AMPGIL in Spain, \nand many others. In the post-soviet countries its institutionalization only begins. For example, organisations \nof parents of homosexual children exist in Ukraine, Russia, and Moldova. Obviously, the movement of \nparents of LGBT children faces similar challenges as the international one, necessitating its careful \nexamination. \nThe empirical basis of this article includes semi-structured interviews with seven mothers of gays and \nlesbians from different cities of Ukraine, who belong to NGO “Tergo”. During the field research period \n(February-March 2015) there were any male members in this NGO. \nBased on the review of previous studies and their own research, the authors have identified the factors \nof involvement of parents of homosexual children into the LGBT movement in Ukraine. It is necessary to \ndistinguish two types of factors: factors related to satisfaction of their own needs and factors related to \nhelping others. The first category includes the need for support and assistance and the need for knowledge; \nthe second focuses on the support and the desire to protect their children, the need to provide assistance and \nsupport to other children, support of other parents, and the need to express opinions and needs of the LGBT \ncommunity.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".