MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402200767 · doi:10.59589/noso.42024.16669

Names as a trans technology

2024· article· en· W4402200767 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueNordic Journal of Socio-Onomastics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicNames, Identity, and Discrimination Research
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGender identityIdentity (music)Intelligibility (philosophy)PsychologySociologyGender studiesSocial psychologyEpistemologyAestheticsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Children are often given a name based in some part on the sex they were assigned at birth. For trans youth, their given name does not always reflect their gender and so an aspect of their transition often includes changing their name. Drawing on interviews with trans youth in Australia, Ireland and Canada, I explore how trans youths’ naming practices offer insight into the ways that they express their desire for intelligibility and safety, while simultaneously navigating gender norms and a new sense of identity. In this paper, I engage with trans studies and critical child studies to argue that naming practices are a trans technology that trans youth use to strategically navigate gender. For some trans youth, chosen first names are described as way to be seen as one of the two societally recognized genders (man or woman), and for others, their chosen first name reflects their resistance to cisnormativity and naming practices that adhere to binary gender norms.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.509
Threshold uncertainty score0.833

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.349 · 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