Intransigent Legislation: Public Policy analysis on the reality of Trans live
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This paper engages in a comparative analysis of trans-positive political frameworks in Brazil, Canada, and Costa Rica. Our analysis focused on the protection of trans rights and access to gender-affirmative and trans-positive health care, as well as the legal mechanisms involved in changing ones name and gender designator. The information was gathered from January 2014 to September 2015, through virtual research in the official government websites and in the following databases: Medline, LILACS, SciELO and Google Scholar. The paper restricts this analysis in highlighting the necropower of Law and Medicine as instituted forces that throughout the “normalizing”, homogenizing, moralizing, psychiatrizing and pathologizing process, dictate in society their rules. It is concluded that the human rights with regards access to the health and judicial systems, remain based on an invisible or psychiatric model. Therefore, in the examined countries we can conclude that the advancing steps show relatively limited progress, perhaps, because the gender perspective is still absent from the social debate.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".