MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2562573612 · doi:10.2105/ajph.2016.303465

Transgender Health: New Zealand’s Innovative Statistical Standard for Gender Identity

2016· article· en· W2562573612 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Frank Pega, Sari L. Reisner, Randall L. Sell, Jaimie F. Veale

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Public Health · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsTransgenderCensusGovernment (linguistics)Gender identityIdentity (music)PopulationDemographicsPolitical sciencePublic relationsEconomic growthMedicineSociologyEnvironmental healthGender studiesDemographyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The implementation of the New Zealand government's recently developed statistical standard for gender identity has led to, and will stimulate further, collection of gender identity data in administrative records, population surveys, and perhaps the census. This will provide important information about the demographics, health service use, and health outcomes of transgender populations to allow evidence-based policy development and service planning. However, the standard does not promote the two-question method, risking misclassification and undercounts; does promote the use of the ambiguous response category "gender diverse" in standard questions; and is not intersex inclusive. Nevertheless, the statistical standard provides a first model for other countries and international organizations, including United Nations agencies, interested in policy tools for improving transgender people's health.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.096
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.222
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.179
Threshold uncertainty score0.509

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0960.222
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.009
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.155
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.312 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Public HealthSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207