Black sexual and gender diverse scholars' contributions to psychology.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychology has a long history of perpetuating scientific racism and pathologizing gender and sexually diverse individuals. The field has been criticized for the reproduction of racism, sexism, cissexism, and other social inequities. This intersectional epistemological exclusion has led to a lack of appreciation for the work of Black sexual and gender diverse (SGD) scholars within the field of psychology. To highlight and center the contributions of Black SGD scholars in the field, we conducted an in-depth literature search of the work of 62 Black SGD scholars whose names and curricula vitae were obtained through email listservs, Twitter, and snowball sampling. In analyzing the work of the scholars, a total of 34 Black SGD scholars met inclusion criteria and had their research included in our review. We summarize their major contributions to the field of psychology in this article. Implications of these scholars' works and their potential to help address the lack of visibility of Black SGD scholars in mainstream psychology journals are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.028 |
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 it