MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2902587413 · doi:10.3138/chr.2016-0001

“We Had Become a Community”:Gays of Ottawa (<scp>go</scp>) and the Birth of Community, 1971–7

2018· article· en· W2902587413 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Michael Graydon

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Historical Review · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLesbianParliamentHomosexualityPopulationCivil rightsGender studiesPolitical scienceSociologyPoliticsLawCriminologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada’s lesbian and gay rights movement had an inauspicious birth, starting as it did with the “We Demand” rally, held on a rainy, cold Saturday in August 1971 on a near-empty Parliament Hill. In response, a number of gay men gathered in Ottawa to found Gays of Ottawa (go). Rapidly, go became a prominent organization within the country’s gay rights movement, remaining in operation until 1995. Born into an era when homosexuality was deeply stigmatized, lesbians and gays in Ottawa experienced additional anxieties due to rcmp efforts to remove homosexuals from the federal civil service. Convincing this anxious population to organize – to realize its potential as a community – was the task go set itself. Based on a comprehensive study of go from 1971 to 1995, this article considers events that go executive members believed to be instrumental to creating community. It focuses on the years 1971–7, during which go hosted community dances to foster a sense of community. More importantly, go directly lobbied Ottawa City Council and resisted Ottawa Police actions against gay men. As a result, go came to believe that “we became the community.”

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.846

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0230.018
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Historical Review→Same topicCanadian Identity and History→French-language works237,207→