Bibliographic record
Abstract
Just over a decade ago, when we were high school students attending neighbouring Catholic schools in Ontario, Canada, we found ourselves embroiled in a highly publicized controversy about sexuality and education. As teenagers, we used media publicity as a central strategy in our organizing for the right to form gay–straight alliances in our publicly funded religious schools. At the same time, the media—and, later, sexuality scholars and educational researchers—used us, drawing on our experiences to tell particular kinds of stories about sexuality, youth, and religious schooling. Using autoethnography, queer theory, and critical studies of childhood and youth, we deconstruct these various uses of the Ontario Catholic school GSA controversy and their impact on our lives from our current vantage points as emerging scholars. First, we interrogate how notions of queer young people’s risk and resilience shaped our activism and its reception. Second, we explore how framing queer young people as heroes or victims produces exclusions. Finally, we consider what it has meant for us personally to grow up alongside representations of our activism as teens. We aim to trouble the idealization of LGBTQ young people’s activism by showing how the limited stories and subject positions available to LGBTQ youth, the stigmatization of meaningful intergenerational dialogue between LGBTQ adults and youth, and racist and anti-religious sentiment may prevent adults from understanding, supporting, and welcoming young people into LGBTQ activist movements.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".