Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this article is to draw attention to how harmful and inaccurate discourses pertaining to disaster responsibility is produced, the negative implications such narratives pose and the role of the media in the ways in which discourses about queerness and disaster are reported. Design/methodology/approach Throughout this paper, the authors detail examples of media reporting on discourses relating to people with diverse sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics (SOGIESC) being blamed and held responsible for disasters across the world. The authors examine the value of such reporting as well as describing the harm blame narratives have on queer people and communities. Findings There is little value in reporting on accounts of people publicly declaring that people with diverse SOGIESC are to blame for disaster. More sensitivity is needed around publishing on blame discourses pertaining to already marginalised communities. Originality/value This article contributes to the developing scholarship on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, agender, asexual and aromantic individuals, plus other gender identities and sexual orientations (LGBTQIA+/SOGIESC) and disasters by detailing the harm of blame discourses as well as drawing attention to how the media have a role to play in averting from unintentionally providing a platform for hate speech and ultimately enhancing prejudice against people with diverse SOGIESC.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".