Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract “Homophobia” is a widely understood term referring to antihomosexual attitudes and practices, but comparison of terms such as “homophobia,” “heterosexism,” and “heteronormativity” reveals how they rely on different ideas of what “homosexual” means, and where opposition to same‐sex relations originates. “Homophobia” typically denotes an irrational fear or a set of mistaken ideas held by prejudiced individuals; therefore, its alleviation is most likely to come through therapy or education. Popularized through George Weinberg's 1973 book, Society and the Healthy Homosexual , homophobia is a concept with strong roots in psychology. Its use tends to focus attention on individuals, to locate its origins in childhood socialization, and to conceive of it as a prejudice directed against homosexual persons. “Heterosexism” offers a more sociological notion that shifts analysis to the ways in which the social institutions of government, workplace, religion, family, and media are organized in ways that exclude or disadvantage same‐sex relations. Resolving heterosexism means reforming or reorganizing social institutions in ways that allow and support same‐sex bonding and sexuality. Finally, “heteronormativity” arises from analysis of how distinctions like heterosexual/homosexual are reproduced. For queer theory, the issue is not one of appealing for tolerance or acceptance of a quasi‐ethnic community of lesbians and gay men, but of shaking up the entire heterosexual/homosexual binary that fuels the distinction in the first place.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".