MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4239709726 · doi:10.1057/9780230510715_7

Sex Diversity in Human Animals

2004· book-chapter· en· W4239709726 on OpenAlexaff
Myra J. Hird

Bibliographic record

VenuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · 2004
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSexual Differentiation and Disorders
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMoresKinshipDiversity (politics)Human animalHuman sexualityBiologyGender studiesSociologyAnthropologyEcologyPolitical scienceDomesticationPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human animals, like other animals, actualize a vast range of kinship practices, sexual practices, sexually reproductive practices, and so on. Cultural mores may prohibit the frank discussion of these practices, but they take place nonetheless. Many books, articles, television, and radio programs are devoted to detailing this diversity of sexual, kinship, and reproductive practices of human animals. But one aspect of human animal diversity that has only recently caught the attention of the public is the diversity of sex “differences.” Recognition of this diversity means, at the very least, understanding that there are more categories than simply “female” and “male.” The term “ intersex ” (which, before 1920, used to be referred to as “hermaphroditism”) refers to human and nonhuman animals who are born with physical characteristics that have been taxonomically defined as either female or male. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooksSame topicSexual Differentiation and DisordersFrench-language works237,207