How Does Hegemonic Society Perpetuate LGBTQ+ Discrimination Through the Institutions and Ideologies of Law, Education, and Religion?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has shown that the institutions and ideologies behind hegemonic society’s laws, educational system, and religions, have been integral to the discrimination of LGBTQ+ youth. To better understand the specific aspects of each institution, and how they directly affect LGBTQ+ youth, this paper critically examines these institutions using both the traditional heteronormative lens, as well as the more recent LGBTQ+ friendly lens. Issues such as the role of homophobic political leaders, and the laws they pass, are considered. As the majority of youth spend their formative years in an educational setting, the role of teachers, peers, and parents are all considered when discussions of ‘coming out’ or sexual education is brought to light. Furthermore, in an attempt to understand the coexistence of LGBTQ+ youth and religious education, comparisons between different school settings are taken into consideration. Following the review, different avenues are suggested to further study this topic in order to create a more inclusive, safe, and accepting society for all sexualities and gender identities.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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 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".