LGBTQ+ students in higher education: an evaluation of website data and accessible, ongoing resources in Ontario universities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Students who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and/or queer (LGBTQ+) are at high risk of being harassed and discriminated. As such, they are in need of a welcoming and inclusive campus environment, and specific resources to support them. A review of the current literature describes how heavily campus environment is linked to LGBTQ+ student mental health, and the importance of the availability of resources. Current literature is analysed for specific issues facing LGBTQ+ students, demonstrating their need for positive environments and LGBTQ+ specific resources. Whereas many institutions may claim that they support LGBTQ+ students, enactment of this support is examined by describing the way universities speak about LGBTQ+ students and communities, the resources made available to them, and how easily accessible those resources are to their students, specifically online. This study reveals that there are few ongoing, accessible resources for LGBTQ+ students in Ontario, Canada, and that there is a profound lack of focus on resources for mental health, which are very much needed. The results of the study uncover the need for institutions to provide more ongoing resources to students, and to make those resources clearly accessible through website searches.
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 | 0.024 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".