Terminology and Language Used in Indigenous-Specific Gender and Sexuality Diversity Studies: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cultural responsivity in academic research is central to the use of language that is representative and inclusive of Indigenous worldviews on gender and sexuality diversity. This article uses the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) approach to explore current studies’ contribution to the use of gender and sexuality diverse terminology and language that is representative of Indigenous worldviews. A systematic review of 85 journal articles (published between January 2000 and June 2021) generates both quantitative results regarding the frequency of terms used and qualitative outcomes of actively used terminologies, geographic regions, identified populations, and gender and sexuality diversity-specific themes in Indigenous studies. A substantial glossary of terminology characteristic of the multiplicity of gender and sexuality diversity was identified, however, further research examining gender and sexuality diversity from the perspective of Indigenous worldviews is needed to align with the best practices of equity, diversity, inclusion and belonging.
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 | 0.070 | 0.185 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.038 | 0.043 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".