MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404037977 · doi:10.1080/15299716.2024.2423406

Early Iterations of Bisexual Activism in Toronto, Ontario: A Historical Examination of Bykes and the Ontario Bisexual Network

2024· article· en· W4404037977 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gabryelle Iaconetti

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bisexuality · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeteronormativityGender studiesSexual minorityLesbianSociologyPsychologyQueer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article seeks to illuminate the activities of historical bisexual community groups in Toronto in the late twentieth century, a peak era of bisexual activism in Ontario. The city’s first bisexual women’s group, Bykes, was founded in 1983, and the first mixed gender group, the Ontario Bisexual Network, was established later in 1989. While the former was influenced by radical lesbian separatist politics in 1970s and 1980s Toronto, the latter demonstrated the need to amplify bisexual concerns across the gender spectrum, in addition to serving a growing membership within the burgeoning bisexual community in the city. In order to contextualize the significance of these bisexual community groups, the following research questions are addressed: what were the objectives of Toronto’s early bisexual community groups and how did activists accomplish them? How did bisexual people in these groups situate themselves in Toronto’s gay and lesbian landscape? What were the main tenets of bisexual community building in the city? Through analyses of oral history interviews and archival materials, we can observe that bisexual activists involved in Toronto’s first community groups participated in creating meeting spaces for each other and engaging in public advocacy that revolved primarily around visibility, education, and community care.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.355
Threshold uncertainty score0.520

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.312 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of BisexualitySame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207