Avoiding the spotlight: public scrutiny, moral regulation, and LGBTQ candidate deterrence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
LGBTQ politicians play an important role in advancing LGBTQ interests in government and in educating their fellow lawmakers about LGBTQ issues. But their under-representation in legislatures limits their opportunities to influence public policy. Historically negative attitudes toward sexual minorities suggest that public scrutiny could be an important barrier to candidacy for LGBTQ individuals. This study explores perceptions of public scrutiny and the forms in which they expect it to take for LGBTQ candidates. Interviews with 101 Canadians from diverse backgrounds reveal that some LGBTQ individuals forgo a career in politics to avoid the moral regulation of non-traditional lifestyles and identities that often underlies public scrutiny of politicians. While LGBTQ individuals share other study participants’ concerns regarding the loss of privacy and political criticism, they also expect their sexuality and physical appearance to come under particular scrutiny. LGBTQ candidate experiences on the campaign trail provide support for their expectations, revealing the ways in which politicians are regulated to ensure they conform to the white heterosexist norms of politics.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".