MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407207021 · doi:10.1080/00918369.2025.2460983

LGBTQA Embodiment and Spatiality in Hamilton, Ontario: A Phenomenological Investigation

2025· article· en· W4407207021 on OpenAlexaffabout
Caris Towle, K. Bruce Newbold, Allison Williams, Rob Wilton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Homosexuality · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySociologyPhenomenology (philosophy)Interpretative phenomenological analysisSocial psychologyGender studiesEpistemologyQualitative researchAnthropologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For queer individuals, social space can be a matter of negotiating between being seen or unseen by others, and this negotiation underpins one's ability to feel rooted or comfortable, as well as being capable of movement. In this paper, a spatial phenomenological approach to queer embodiment is employed that understands space as an intrinsically socio-material landscape whereby perceptions and embodiments of gender and sexuality facilitate mobility. Interviews were conducted with fourteen (14) individuals who self-identified as LGBTQA and were newcomers to Hamilton. The interviews were transcribed and then analyzed using a three-step Interpretive Phenomenological Approach (IPA). Four overlapping themes are highlighted: embodiment, nonphysical violence, visibility and invisibility, and disorientation. Together, these themes are used to discuss how LGBTQA individuals in Hamilton experience living space in highly complex and nuanced relationships with other embodied subjects. Diverging from traditional social constructionist and psychological approaches to queer geographies, our findings demonstrate the utility of revisiting phenomenological concepts to understand gender, romantic, and sexual minorities, and also corroborate the emerging research that demonstrates a significant interplay between gender, sexuality, and space.

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)0.002
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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.926

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.335 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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