MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399651288 · doi:10.1177/08912432241252617

Choosing to Stay: Building a Future for Gender-Diverse People in Saskatchewan through Stories of Hope and Belonging

2024· article· en· W4399651288 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rachel Loewen Walker, Jake Bergen, T. Fayant‐McLeod, Kerry Marshall

Bibliographic record

VenueGender & Society · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSaskTel (Canada)University of WinnipegUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociologyGender studiesPsychologyGerontologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper draws on the first comprehensive study of Two Spirit, trans, nonbinary, and gender-nonconforming (2STNBGN) people in Saskatchewan. Despite challenges, including rising conservatism and targeted political attacks, we temper assumptions that trans and queer people want to leave Saskatchewan for other locations where the 2STNBGN community is assumed to be bigger. Many of our participants described choosing to stay in the province as an intentional way to build community, advocate for support, and cultivate belonging. We further explore a distinctly prairie politic that includes Two Spirit and Indigiqueer projects of belonging to land and community, cross-provincial trans community organizing, and a complicated geography that supersedes binaries between urban and rural. Our research tells us that gender-diverse people on the prairies are enacted through a “grounded relationality,” a context-dependent, binary-resistant expression through place, whether that place is land, city, country, or small-town paint store. Ultimately, our research shows that despite an increasingly chilly political climate toward 2STNBGN people, Saskatchewan still bears witness to trans joy, innovative activism, and an activated trans community that is invested in a future that they are a part of.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.565
Threshold uncertainty score0.856

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGender & SocietySame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207