The Rainbow Connection: A Time-Series Study of Rainbow Flag Display Across Nine Toronto Neighborhoods
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recently, the display and use of the rainbow flag in historically defined gay neighborhoods has grown even as gay residents and businesses have been driven away by gentrification, rising real-estate costs, and cultural homogenization. At the same time, prevelence and use of the rainbow flag and the rainbow motif has increased in areas not usually considered part of recognized gay neighborhoods. This chapter explores the prevalence and persistence of the display of the rainbow flag and rainbow motif in nine neighborhoods across Toronto, Ontario, Canada. The visual assessment of rainbow flag use across these neighborhoods serves as a potential model for examining the rate of spread of rainbow flags and visual rainbow motif symbols as a means for tracking the movement of the LGBTQ+ community across urban neighborhoods. Initial results suggest potential significance of the prevalence and persistence of the rainbow flag and the rainbow motif. These include; (1) a possible diaspora of LGBTQ+ residents from traditionally defined gay neighborhoods to newly emerging gay or LGBTQ-friendly neighborhoods, (2) a newfound inclusivity or pride among residents of other neighborhoods, and (3) “rainbow washing” due to overuse of the rainbow motif by non-LGBTQ businesses and organizations connected with pride celebrations. While overuse of the rainbow flag may diminish historically coded meaning of the rainbow, that well-intentioned use of the rainbow flag is a positive and welcoming indicator for LGBTQ+ individuals and it may lead to the emergence of additional LGBTQ-friendly enclaves that, over time, could potentially emerge as new gay neighborhoods.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 it