Bibliographic record
Abstract

 
 
 This paper will analyze identity, and what identity means for the LGBTQ2+ community with regards to physical places and spaces. Shared identity, and individual identity of the LGBTQ2+ community shape the physical places and spaces in which the community can live and thrive. Looking into the differentiation of sexualities today has led to boundaries separating the LGBTQ2+ community from cultural and social spaces, as well as physical places and spaces. Why these boundaries exist for the LGBTQ2+ community, and the justification for these boundaries will be brought to light from an urban planning perspective. The importance of the work of urban planners shaping cities and communities to create a safe and comfortable space for the LGBTQ2+ community will be explored. The boundaries presented by the LGBTQ2+ community provides a just social and cultural geography for individuals with shared identities to create a safe space and diverse communities and neighbourhoods. The border presented by LGBTQ2+ communities allows for the voice of LGBTQ2+ individuals to be heard, and the cultural and social geographies to reflect the acceptance of this community.
 
 
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".