Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through in-depth interviews, this chapter examines the ways 25 LGB young adults (18-35 years old) used digital technologies as they do emotion work to preserve relationships with heterosexual parents. Findings demonstrate that, with the aid of technology (especially texting, Skyping, social media, YouTube, television, and various informational websites), LGB young adults engaged in personal and interpersonal forms of “preventive” and “palliative” emotion work. The former's aim was to prevent noxious feelings and the latter to preserve familial relationships despite emotional pain. These forms of emotion work allowed LGBs to maintain relationships with their parents, but by privileging the emotional wellbeing of heterosexual parents above those of LGBs. The authors conclude by suggesting that digital technology can be a dual-edged sword. Access to these technologies may allow LGBs to connect with queer communities and to obtain information about queerness, yet utilizing these technologies as a way to preserve familial relationships was an adaptation to--rather than disruption of--heterosexism and homophobia.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 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".