Binary and non-binary trans students’ experiences in physical education: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to review academic papers on the experiences of binary and non-binary trans people in physical education (PE), published between January 2000 and August 2022. The selection process yielded 16 articles from Brazil, the UK, Spain, Canada, Finland, Ireland, New Zealand, and the USA. The discussion focuses on five themes for analysis: (a) school policies and control, (b) curriculum activities, (c) social environment, (d) transgendering while surviving, and (e) trans-positive experiences. The systematic review highlights the fact that heteronormativity is still present in schools and PE spaces, positioning, categorizing, and policing dissenting bodies and gender identities, which means that many trans students did not have good memories of PE classes. Many similar situations were faced by both binary and non-binary trans students, although with some notable differences. It is thus necessary to deconstruct the prevailing cis-heteronormativity during PE lessons to eradicate the discrimination that (re)produces a hostile environment for these students.
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 | 0.010 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".