Inclusion of LGBTQ+ Individuals in Hong Kong: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Discussion on the rights and inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) individuals in Hong Kong is often based on taken-for-granted socio-cultural norms but not grounded in empirical studies. Methods: A scoping review was conducted to map out the current status of LGBTQ+ inclusion in Hong Kong, with results reported according to PRISMA-ScR guidelines. The review captured 1205 unduplicated studies which were scoped to 152 peer-reviewed articles published from 2010 to 2022. Findings were categorised using an adapted Global LGBTI Inclusion Index into six domains: education, economic well-being, family, health, political and civic participation, and personal security and violence. Results: LGBTQ+ individuals in Hong Kong face prevalent exclusion and discrimination across major domains of life, which does material harm to their well-being. This underscores the importance of legal protection and recognition to address the exclusion of LGBTQ+ individuals. Conclusions: Gaps were identified for future research: (a) the need to address understudied domains other than health; (b) the need to focus on understudied populations (lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people); (c) the wide range of terminologies adopted in existing LGBTQ+ research; and (d) lack of representative data. Policy Implications: This review highlights the importance of collecting empirical data and obtaining representative data on the LGBTQ+ population to assess the current situation and progress made in LGBTQ+ inclusion in Hong Kong, and to inform policy changes related to LGBTQ+ rights.
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 | 0.029 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".