MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3128319093 · doi:10.1080/15240657.2020.1857529

Phantom Phenomena—An Introduction to “Phantom Penis: Extrapolating Neuroscience and Employing Imagination for Trans Male Sexual Embodiment”

2020· article· en· W3128319093 on OpenAlexaff
Paul D. McGeoch, V. Ramachandran

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Gender and Sexuality · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImaging phantomUnderpinningPsychologySituatedCognitive sciencePsychoanalysisNeuroscienceCognitive psychologyMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper provides an introduction to the phenomena of phantom sensations. We recall the events that first led us to survey transsexual men about phantom penises and review some of our recent work in related areas as a primer to contextualizing the neuroscience underpinning Chris Straayer’s exploration of phantom penises. As we discuss, phantom phenomena have long been situated in the borderlands between psychiatry and neurology. With a consideration for subjective experience, which we argue is vital to scientific research, Straayer expands these spaces to incorporate trans theory, psychoanalysis, and cognitive psychology, thus advancing our understandings of what it is to be human.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.537

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.164
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.250 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in Gender and SexualitySame topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207