Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Political activism focused on sexual diversity was first publicly visible at the turn into the twentieth century, mostly in Germany but extending to other large cities in Europe. A second activist wave emerged in the late 1940s, this time in the United States as well as Europe. Movement formation was still based on subcultures more likely in socioeconomic contexts such as those, where men and women were able to live separately from the families and communities in which they were reared. A third wave exploded more dramatically at the very end of the 1960s, this time in a broader range of countries (including Latin America). From that time into the 1980s, activist groups included radical challenges to existing institutional systems, alongside demands for legal rights. As social movement organizing spread, it was shaped by regional contexts but also marked by important cross-country similarities, in part a result of commonalities in the oppressiveness that sexual minorities experienced. In all settings, there have been differences over goals and strategy, as well as concerns about the underrepresentation of women and ethnoracial minorities in movement leadership and priorities. Internal conflict was a recurrent result, though homophobic mobilization by religious conservatives usually forged a degree of unity on the need to resist, blurring boundaries between radicalism and reform. In the process, activists were laying the groundwork for political gains in later decades, even in the face of the AIDS epidemic and a religious right itself more linked than ever in transnational networks.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".