,QYHUVXV2XW/*%73ROLWLFLDQVLQ&DQDGD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
and the provincial legislatures has grown steadily since Burnaby member of Parliament Svend Robinson declared his sexual orientation in 1988. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual Canadians still have a long way to go before they have achieved equitable representation in the mainstream political process, however. This essay explores the backgrounds of “out ” federal and provincial politi-cians, and identifies the various factors that have affected their chances of being successful in electoral races. While things have changed in recent federal and provincial elections, this study concludes that the LGBT candidates most likely to win at the polls are those who established a reputation for community service before the public discovered their sexual orientation. Le nombre de politiciens LGBT (lesbiennes, gais, bisexuels et transgenres) déclarés au Parlement et à l’assemblée législative provinciale a augmenté de façon constante depuis que le député de Burnaby Svend Robinson a proclamé son orientation sexuelle en 1988. Les lesbiennes, homo-sexuels et bisexuels canadiens ont toutefois un long parcours à faire avant d’être représentés de façon équitable au sein du processus politique régulier. Le présent article examine le chemine-ment des politiciens fédéraux et provinciaux qui ont affiché leur préférence au grand jour et recense les divers facteurs qui ont influé sur leurs chances de gagner des courses électorales. Bien que la situation ait changé au cours des élections fédérales et provinciales récentes, cette étude conclut que les candidats LGBT qui ont le plus de chance de gagner leurs élections sont ceux qui se sont taillé une réputation dans le domaine des services communautaires avant que le public découvre leur orientation sexuelle.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.216 | 0.035 |
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".