Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This chapter surveys LGBTQ politics in the Anglo-American democracies, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. Political change has followed a somewhat similar trajectory from the decriminalization of same-sex conduct through struggles over discrimination in areas such as employment to the recognition of same-sex relationships and families. From the emergence of gay liberation in the late 1960s to the marriage equality movements of the 2000s, LGBTQ communities have increasingly lived in the open and pushed for full sexual and political citizenship. In the Anglo-American democracies, same-sex conduct is no longer criminal, discrimination in key areas such as employment is banned, and some form of same-sex relationship recognition exists. At the same time, however, progress in the recognition of queer rights has been uneven, with the United States failing to prohibit employment discrimination and Australia only recently providing legal recognition of same-sex marriage. This chapter discusses the intersection of social movement activism and political institutions in these cases, exploring the role of political mobilization and litigation by LGBTQ movements. In doing so, it identifies some of the key factors that have facilitated and impeded the process of legal and policy change for LGBTQ communities across this group of countries including political institutional factors, partisan electoral dynamics, and the role of religion and public opinion.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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; 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".