How Does Hegemonic Society Perpetuate LGBTQ+ Discrimination Through the Institutions and Ideologies of Law, Education, and Religion?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it