Gender/sex diversity beliefs: Scale construction, validation, and links to prejudice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prejudice against or affirmation of gender/sex minorities is often framed in terms of beliefs about the ontology of gender/sex (i.e., what gender/sex is), or gender/sex diversity beliefs. We constructed the Gender/Sex Diversity Beliefs Scale (GSDB) to assess ontological beliefs about the nature of gender/sex, including essentialist and social constructionist beliefs, and validated the GSDB across a series of studies. In Study 1 ( N = 304), we explored the factor structure of the GSDB and found evidence of associations with prejudice against transgender and/or nonbinary people. In Study 2 ( N = 300), we assessed the stability of the factor structure of the GSDB and examined its criterion-related validity, including its relationship to feelings toward multiple gender/sex groups. In Studies 3a ( N = 48) and 3b ( N = 500), we established test–retest reliability. We conclude that gender/sex diversity beliefs are important for understanding contemporary attitudes about gender/sex, including prejudice against gender/sex minorities, and that the GSDB is a reliable and valid way to measure them.
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 | 0.022 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".