MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888966381 · doi:10.1002/pra2.2017.14505401122

Seeking ways to our transgender bodies, by ourselves: Rationalizing transgender‐specific health information behaviors

2017· article· en· W2888966381 on OpenAlexaff
Blake Hawkins, Jen Jack Gieseking

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsTrinity CollegeUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransgenderQueerLesbianContext (archaeology)Argument (complex analysis)Information needsPsychologyPopulationGender studiesSociologyMedicineGeographyComputer scienceDemographyWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Transgender people have typically been pooled in studies on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) health information behavior. We, however, argue that transgender people have unique health needs and context that differ from LGBQ people. To demonstrate our argument, we are using the transitioning process from male‐to‐female or female‐to‐male as a case study. We are using data currently being analyzed from Tumblr to demonstrate how their process of seeking health information differs from LGBQ and highlights why information science needs to better understand this population and their information needs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.585
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.005
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations36
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Association for Information Science and TechnologySame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207