Analysis of “Yes” Responses to Uniformed Police Marching in Pride: Perspectives From LGBTQ+ Communities in St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, a number of Canadian police forces have been banned from Pride parades. A ban on uniformed police in these parades has proven to be contentious; the general public and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and plus (LGBTQ+) communities have been split on the issue. Limited research has examined the perspectives of the general population or, until now, LGBTQ+ people on this matter. Using an online survey designed to gather ideas or opinions of LGBTQ+ community members regarding their hopes, aspirations, and vision for the St. John’s Pride board, 181 LGBTQ+ respondents responded to this question: Should the police be allowed to march in uniform at the St. John’s Pride parade? In total, 92 (51%) said “Yes.” A critical analysis of their qualitative responses revealed four interrelated themes: (a) power of Pride, (b) “they are we and we are they,” (c) “the police are on our side,” and (d) taking back Pride. Implications of the findings for police-LGBTQ+ community relations are discussed.
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 | 0.008 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 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".