Queer Sexuality and Exclusion: Advancing Environmental Justice in the Use, Management and Regulation of Urban Parks and Greenspace
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is currently a lack of knowledge on systemic barriers to urban park access experienced by 2SLGBTQ+ communities. This includes understanding how the threat of violence in greenspace limits social interaction for 2SLGBTQ+ identifying people, and how opportunities for receiving the benefits associated with access to natural settings in an urban landscape are limited or restricted. Criminalization and violence towards 2SLGBTQ+ communities in the City of Toronto parks compel a need to examine how normative framings of urban greenspace are reproduced and enforced through management, governance, and regulation. This study draws upon qualitative methods and a social constructionist approach to gain an empirical and conceptual understanding of the implications for environmental justice and management of parks in Toronto. Triangulation across key informant interviews, ground-truthing and key document analysis provide a better understanding of struggles over power, advocacy and agency for 2SLGBTQ+ communities and assists in uncovering the views of various stakeholder groups that are involved, including park management, community activists and politicians. This research seeks to provide practical and theoretical benefits through enhancing the visibility of 2SLGBTQ+ communities’ lived experiences, better-establishing greenspace access among marginalized communities as an environmental justice issue, informing current greenspace management practices in ways that allow more equitable outcomes and cultivating collaboration between 2SLGBTQ+ communities and environmental management bodies.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".