Market-based places, diversity, and intersectional exclusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resumo Este artigo busca entender como a incidência da interseccionalidade opera dentro de locais de mercado que se apresentam como diversos ou abertos à diversidade - especificamente, lugares gays. Utiliza-se a abordagem interseccional para localizar posições minoritárias (o público gay masculino) em uma malha de relações que se estabelece em tais contextos (locais de mercado categorizados como gays). O artigo apresenta os resultados de um trabalho de campo conduzido por 2 anos (2015 e 2016) em 2 metrópoles, Porto Alegre e Montreal (Canadá), com base em entrevistas realizadas com 26 indivíduos. Os achados de pesquisa indicam o modo como a exclusão continua operando em categorias marginalizadas, mesmo dentro de lugares que ostensivamente recebem membros de categorias que já sofrem preconceito. Por fim, discute-se a implicação gerencial de como a expectativa de abertura à diversidade é contraintuitiva, já que quanto mais ampliada a oferta no local de mercado aberto à diversidade, maior a percepção de exclusão interseccional.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".