Trial Discourse and Judicial Decision-Making: Constraining the Boundaries of Gendered Identities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent formulations of the relationship between language and gender, following Butler (1990), have emphasized the performative aspect of gender. Under this account, language is one important means by which gender—an ongoing social process—is enacted or constituted; gender is something individuals do —in part through linguistic choices—as opposed to something individuals are or have (West and Zimmerman, 1987). While the theorizing of gender as ‘performative’ has encouraged language and gender researchers to focus on the agency and creativity of social actors in the constitution of gender, to my mind there has been less emphasis placed on another aspect of Butler’s framework—the ‘rigid regulatory frame’ (Butler, 1990) within which gendered identities are produced—that is, the limits and constraints on speakers’ agency in constructing such identities. This emphasis on the ‘performative’ aspect of Butler’s work, rather than on her discussions of the regulatory norms that define and police normative constructions of gender, may arise because, as Cameron (1997) suggests, philosophical accounts of Butler’s ‘rigid regulatory frame’ often remain very abstract. For Cameron (1997: 31), too often in feminist philosophical discussions, ‘gender… floats free of the social contexts and activities in which it will always be… embedded,’ obscuring the fact that the routine enactment of gender is often, perhaps always, subject to what she calls the ‘institutional coerciveness’ of social situations.
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 | 0.051 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.074 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| 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".