“We’re Here, We’re Queer, and We’re Not Going Away” Student Policies and LGBTQ+ Students’ Experiences on Canadian Christian Campuses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research highlights that Christian campuses are often unwelcoming and hostile spaces for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and other gender and sexually diverse (LGBTQ+) students. Yet, research, including emerging Canadian research, often overlooks how institutional policies shape LGBTQ+ students’ experiences. Further, little attention is given to the affirming experiences LGBTQ+ students encounter on Christian campuses. Through a collective case study of two Canadian Christian universities involving document analysis and interviews, I explored the discourses that school policies constructed concerning gender and sexuality, LGBTQ+ students’ experiences of exclusion and affirmation, and how policy, alongside other factors, shapes their experiences and well-being. As well, I examined ways in which students’ identities were affirmed and their resilience. Findings show that while anti-LGBTQ+ policies contribute to discrimination and the gradual erosion of students’ wellbeing, students find meaningful instances of affirmation internally and from faculty, staff, and peers. The findings bring visibility to LGBTQ+ students’ experiences and highlight the importance of school community members affirming students’ LGBTQ+ identities in the context of exclusion.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.043 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".