In or out? Citizenship outcomes of working sexual and gender minority people of Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Despite the greater visibility of sexual and gender minorities, due to data limitations, the quantitative literature on their citizenship outcomes is very limited. Using a large original survey of Canadian sexual and gender minorities and the Canadian General Social Survey, this article first examines the extent of political inclusion of sexual and gender minorities, as measured by sense of belonging to Canada and the province of residence, likelihood of voting, and confidence in the police and the justice system. Sexual and gender minorities are generally found to have a markedly weaker sense of belonging to Canada and confidence in its institutions. Next, these patterns are re‐examined accounting for the degree of outness. The results indicate considerable discrepancies across sexual and gender minorities in how outness affects their citizenship outcomes. In particular, it seems that the sociopolitical profile of these groups plays an important mediating role in the effects of outness on their citizenship outcomes. Related Articles Burnett, Craig M., and Aaron S. King. 2015. “The Personal Politics of Same‐Sex Marriage.” Politics & Policy 43(4): 586–610. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12126 . Lewis, Gregory B., Marc A. Rogers, and Kenneth Sherrill. 2011. “Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Voters in the 2000 US Presidential Election.” Politics & Policy 39(5): 655–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747‐1346.2011.00315.x . Winburn, Jonathan, and Amanda Winburn. 2020. “The Role of Political Ideology in Public Opinion toward Enumerated Antibullying Policies in Public Schools.” Politics & Policy 48(3): 442–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12355 .
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".