Troubled meditations on psychosexual differentiation: Reply to Hegarty (2009).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
P. Hegarty (see record 2009-09998-015) offered several critiques of the articles by G. Rieger, J. A. W. Linsenmeier, L. Gygax, and J. M. Bailey (see record 2007-19851-006) and K. D. Drummond, S. J. Bradley, M. Peterson-Badali, and K. J. Zucker (see record 2007-19851-005) that were published in a Developmental Psychology special section entitled "Sexual Orientation Across the Lifespan," guest-edited by C. J. Patterson and R. C. Savin-Williams (2008): (a) reliance on a "disease paradigm" (i.e., the use of "medicalizing" language) of lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender issues at the expense of a "stigma paradigm," (b) endorsement of a developmental linkage between childhood sex-typed behavior and later gender identity-sexual orientation, and (c) various sociophilosophical and applied matters pertaining to the diagnosis of gender identity disorder in children. In this reply, we address these 3 criticisms and argue that an interdisciplinary approach, informed by multiple paradigms, will most certainly facilitate, not impede, the discovery of answers to many questions about psychosexual development for which data are currently lacking.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.025 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".