Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article traces the origins, evolution, and effects of LGBT advocacy by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in global forums. In particular, the article focuses on LGBT advocacy in intergovernmental organizations such as the United Nations. The first section provides a historical overview and traces the rise of LGBT NGOs—as well as the transnational networks linking them—from the interwar period to the present day. In doing so, this section discusses the strategies that such organizations have leveraged to gain clout and highlights how LGBT issues have gained salience and have generated contestation within UN human rights bodies and mechanisms. The second section provides a conceptual overview of how advocates have advanced LGBT issues and discusses how the frames of sexual and reproductive health rights, public health and HIV/AIDS, and, increasingly, LGBT human rights have been leveraged by NGOs to legitimize and to further propel LGBT advocacy. Finally, the third section discusses some of the challenges facing global LGBT advocacy. In particular, this section highlights North–South power inequalities in shaping and driving a global advocacy agenda and the tensions arising from limited emphasis on non-Western notions of sexual and gender diversity. This section concludes with a discussion of new directions in LGBT advocacy, highlighting in particular the increased efforts to combine human rights advocacy with inclusive development policy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".