MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405190849 · doi:10.26443/law.v69i2.1523

Genderfucking as a Critical Legal Methodology

2024· article· en· W4405190849 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Florence Ashley

Bibliographic record

VenueMcGill Law Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Politics and Representation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceLaw and economicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this essay, I theorize genderfucking as a critical legal methodology. Genderfucking is defined by its focus on the needs and experiences of those who ‘fuck’ with gender, resisting attempts at gender governance through laws, policies, and practices. Adopting a politics of messiness, genderfucking is critical of recognition and calls into question the state’s legitimacy in defining and policing gender categories. Genderfucking offers a rich and fertile approach for analyzing a social, political, and legal world indelibly marked by regimes of gender and, in so doing, steps on the path towards gender liberation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.213

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.110
Scholarly communication0.0140.020
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.188
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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 venueMcGill Law JournalSame topicGender Politics and RepresentationFrench-language works237,207