Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper aims to explore critical anti-oppressive non-profit organizations who hope to support queer and/or trans folx in a neoliberal world without sacrificing their level of care. The purpose of this research paper is to a) study what events and circumstances may lead queer and/or trans folx to seek out services from non-profit organizations and b) to facilitate a discussion on whether critical anti-oppressive non-profit organizations support queer and/or trans folx within a neoliberal world without sacrificing their level of care. Transformative, anti-Black racist, intersectional feminist, anti-colonial, and queer theory frameworks are used to inform this topic. The methodology consisted of a narrative approach to qualitative research. The study involved semi-structured interviews with three participants, Lauren, Xavier, and Oliver, who have all chosen pseudonyms for this study. Lauren identifies as a fat White queer femme who grew up in the Durham region. Xavier identifies as a Latin/European trans male, and Oliver identifies as White and queer trans-male and a wheelchair user. All three of the participants identified as queer and/or trans and had experience in receiving services from or working in a non-profit organization. The findings highlighted how participants shared personal accounts of racism and recollections of how the “system” favours White queer and/or trans folx as opposed to racialized queer/trans folx. The participants personally recalled the barriers that exist when they have attempted to assess services in addition to the homophobic/transphobic attitudes and behaviours from healthcare professionals/ organizations that often tokenized them.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
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".