Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, as is the case in most other countries, heterosexuality achieved normative status while homosexuality was classified as sin, crime, and pathology. The state had a direct role in establishing and maintaining this social hegemony, and it took steps to marginalize 2SLGBTQ+ communities. While this formal mistreatment has not been passively accepted, the ‘gay rights’ movement has not been successful at obliterating unjust perspectives and practices. Examples of direct, indirect, and systemic discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity persist across Canada. One key example is housing, which impacts profoundly on health and well-being. Like other policy fields, housing would benefit from a fundamental reorientation, one that takes into account intergenerational justice. Multiple communities, including 2SLGBTQ+ communities, which have suffered intergenerational harms, would benefit from such a reorientation of housing policy, which promises improved human flourishing. However, an assessment of the National Housing Strategy 2018 through an intergenerational justice lens exposes multiple shortcomings. We suggest that foregrounding intergenerational justice in the housing setting, and in the interpretation and application of the NHS 2018, could and should lead to better housing and health outcomes for 2SLGBTQ+ individuals. It may be, however, that such a perspective needs to be included in a new Canadian Housing Act that contains more explicit standards and directions for housing developing, sensitive to the needs of specific communities, like 2SLGBTQ+ communities, and of intergenerational justice.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.002 |
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".