Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article introduces the special issue on placing LGBTQ+ urban activisms. It argues that place provides a vital framework for considering a more decentred and transversal representation of such activisms, creating potential for the consideration of smaller and more peripheral locations and alternative visions of the more familiar and iconic cities that have been centres of LGBTQ+ urban social movements in the global North. While inspired by the anti-colonial, subaltern and feminist ethos of what Derickson terms ‘Urbanisation 2’, the article makes the case for adopting a middle ground – Urbanisation 1.5 – based in material realities that shape both the practice and inquiry into contemporary LGBTQ+ urban activisms. It begins by reviewing and dismantling established histories and theories of LGBTQ+ urban activisms, queerly calling into question the employment of urban theories that emphasise spatial hierarchies and linear temporality. Next, the article proposes alternatives, suggesting a shift towards recognising the contingencies and multiplicities that come together in and across urban places. The third section emphasises the critical continuities and ordinary entanglements involved in remembering, being and doing urban LGBTQ+ activisms in place. It concludes by encouraging the employment of elsewhere and otherwise as a critical urban strategy for igniting further inquiry into the politics of LGBTQ+ activisms in urban studies.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| 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".