Bibliographic record
Abstract
Th e idea for this book emerged in the summer of 2011, when Th e Lesbian and Gay Movement and the State (Ashgate) was published; I felt that it was necessary to explore the hypothesis that the LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, transgender, and queer) movement was not simply a victim of governments in Canada but that it resisted their attempts to box it in -and may even have had some infl uence on them.I discussed this idea with Miriam Smith, who not only considered it suffi ciently fertile to nourish a book project but also encouraged me to go ahead.For this I would like to express my heartfelt thanks: her confi dence in this project gave me the confi dence in my ability to bring it to fruition.I would like to extend my gratitude to everyone who agreed to join me in the adventure of producing this book.Th is was quite a gesture of faith as this book brings forth my second life's work: having been associated with the subject of women in politics for almost a quarter-century (life goes by so fast!),I was not a known quantity to my colleagues working on the subject of LGBTQ activism.Th e contributors to this project showed their trust in me by working with someone with no record in the fi eld -and this is not insignifi cant when one considers the overloaded schedule that every academic faces.What is more, they showed infi nite patience by always responding quickly and courteously to my many editorial queries.Finally, I would like to thank them for staying on board, for this book has been a long -but incredibly fascinating -journey.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".