Wearable Identities: Understanding Wearables’ Potential for Supporting the Expression of Queer Identities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Queer identity research largely overlooks wearable technology. Most work exploring sociocultural considerations of wearable technology determines what is “socially acceptable” based on privileged bodies, excluding queer perspectives. We address this by establishing the foundations of a knowledge base for wearables that support queer expression. We conducted a two-phase qualitative study exploring queer expressive practices and wearable technologies through 16 semi-structured interviews and 15 body mapping workshops with the queer community. We observed themes framing the queer community’s understanding of queer expression, wearable technology, and wearable technology for queer users. Providing design considerations and discussions on the potential of our methods, our work enables the creation of wearable technologies that offer meaningful user experiences for the queer community. CAUTION: This paper discusses topics that could trigger those with histories of homophobia, transphobia, gender dysphoria, racism or eating disorders. Please use caution when engaging with this work.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 teacher head, 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".