Beyond transitioning: committing to, exploring, and reconsidering transmasculine identity
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
The current study investigated the components of gender identity development using a neo-Eriksonian process model. We aimed to derive and validate the distinct combinations of commitment, in-depth exploration, and reconsideration of commitment that characterise different states of self-understanding (identity statuses) experienced by transgender individuals in relation to their gender. To do so, we used two-stage clustering to categorise 354 transmasculine respondents on the Utrecht-Management of Identity Commitments Scale, expecting to produce statuses consistent with the theoretical solution of Crocetti and colleagues (2008). Partially supporting the hypotheses, we found that a four-cluster solution comprising Achievement, Closure, Moratorium, and Diffusion optimally captured transgender identity development, consistent with findings in lesbian and gay identity development by Kranz and Pierrard (2018). The current statuses related differentially to identity functions and elements of positive transgender identity which further supports their validity. These findings suggest that the experience of gender identity development for transgender people can be partitioned into meaningful statuses characterised by unique features.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it