Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of LGBTQ+ spaces in defining the urban experience of people belonging to the LGBTQ+ community has become the subject of a growing literature in the field of urban sociology. Our present research focuses on the perception of these urban spaces by their attendants and analyses how different LGBTQ+ spaces shape a sense of identity, community, and security among them. Using the tools of ethnographic research, such as participant observation and in-depth interview, we analysed two LGBTQ+ friendly spaces located in Padua, an Italian medium-size city with a noteworthy LGBTQ+ history. The selected spaces each have a different social function: political or recreational; one space is the headquarters of a political association, and the other one is a club. Our results show that an LGBTQ+ urban space, especially the political one, can have a positive influence on the perception of a sense of identity, community, and security. This is both thanks to its social function, because it allows for the creation of solid bonds inside a safe place, and thanks to its history, which makes it a point-of-reference for the local LGBTQ+ community.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".