Bibliographic record
Abstract
Homophobia is perhaps the most widely understood term to refer to anti‐homosexual attitudes and practices, but comparison of such terms as homophobia, heterosexism, and heteronormativity reveals how these terms rely on different ideas of what homosexual means, and where opposition to same‐sex relations originates. Homophobia typically denotes, like other phobias, an irrational fear or a set of mistaken ideas held by prejudiced individuals; its alleviation therefore likely comes 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 tends to be used less widely, but it offers a more sociological notion of practices that are embedded in social structures and reinforced by ideology. Use of a term like heterosexism shifts analysis to the ways in which the social institutions of government, workplace, religion, family, and media are organized to exclude or disadvantage same‐sex relations. Resolving heterosexism implies reforming or reorganizing social institutions in ways that allow and support same‐sex relationships. Finally, heteronormativity is a term used most often in literary studies, which see both homosexuality and anti‐homosexuality as effects of binary distinctions made in language. Textual deconstruction typically seeks to find how and why such distinctions as heterosexual–homosexual arise and are reproduced. If distinctions of this kind were not made at all, or least were of little significance, then presumably anti‐homosexuality could scarcely come about either. For queer theory, the issue is not one of appealing for tolerance or acceptance for a quasi‐ethnic, twenty‐first‐century urban community of lesbians and gay men, but of shaking up or transgressing 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".