Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historical research on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) communities in Canada has overwhelmingly focused on communities in larger urban settings. This article builds on this research by examining the experiences, histories, and defining characteristics of LGBTQ community in London, Ontario. Qualitative interviews with twenty participants were completed to acquire in-depth perspectives on how LGBTQ community is defined and experienced in the London context. Additional interviews were completed with five key informants who had lived in London for over twenty years to provide more of a historical context to the study. Archival research was conducted at the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives and the Hudler Archives at the University of Western Ontario Libraries. Research data was then analyzed using a priori themes and emergent categories. Four major themes of community were described by study participants: (1) support; (2) common or shared visions/goals; (3) physical spaces; and (4) LGBTQ-specific events. These resulting themes were applied retrospectively through an historical analysis of the Homophile Association of London Ontario (HALO) club. This research is important because it provides a localized definition of LGBTQ community and fills a void in the literature on LGBTQ histories in Canada by focusing on a smaller city. Furthermore, this research on HALO runs counter to arguments by other historians that suggest that homophile associations were short-lived, fragmented, and conservative. The history of the HALO club is a significant example of the ways in which community can be developed and sustained in a smaller city.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".