Exploring transnational LGBTQI+ solidarities: A scoping review protocol on the complexities, theories, and models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On August 28, 2022, the Government of Canada unveiled its first Federal Action Plan to promote LGBTQI+ equality, committing to significant international investments and diplomatic initiatives. While these initiatives are viewed positively by some experts, others critique them as manifestations of homonationalism or homocolonialism, perpetuating colonial legacies and neoliberal norms. These debates underscore the complexities of transnational LGBTQI+ solidarity, particularly within the Majority World, shaped by colonial histories. This scoping review protocol aims to critically assess the empirical literature on transnational LGBTQI+ solidarities, to map, compare, and contrast various configurations of LGBTQI+ transnational solidarities, while also highlighting the different theories and methodologies employed in research on these topics. We will systematically search social science databases for relevant studies, emphasizing literature from peer-reviewed journals. In the study selection process, we will include research using primary sources and systematic reviews, while excluding the grey literature and non-peer-reviewed sources. Data will be charted using the COVIDENCE software, with rigorous inclusion criteria and a detailed data extraction process. The review will synthesize findings to identify key themes, gaps in knowledge, and provide policy and practice recommendations. Our goal is to map and compare different LGBTQI+ transnational solidarity strategies, contributing to a deeper understanding of these complex issues, ultimately informing future research and policy development in the field of LGBTQI+ rights on a global scale. The results will help develop a comprehensive understanding of the issues and propose a future research agenda.
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 | 0.278 | 0.298 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.050 | 0.013 |
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".