MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406159381 · doi:10.1080/14427591.2024.2437773

Defying the deficit: Imagining intersections of occupation, gender euphoria, and trans joy

2025· article· en· W4406159381 on OpenAlexaff
Holly Reid, Kirby Way

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Occupational Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Therapy Practice and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEuphoriantFeelingTransgenderOccupational scienceGender studiesPsychologySociologySocial psychologyAestheticsOccupational therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Growing awareness and interest in understanding and addressing the occupational needs of transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) populations calls for further discussion surrounding how occupation is vital in facilitating trans joy and gender euphoria. Dominant discourses referring to TGD experiences largely focus on stories of challenge, statistics that demonstrate poor health outcomes compared to cisgender populations, and the medicalized aspects of gender transition. While recognizing that these experiences are relevant and important for many TGD people, it is equally important to include stories of joy and positivity. Within occupational science, there lies potential for exploring and deepening the understanding of how occupations facilitate positive gender-based experiences and feelings. This paper defies deficit-based understandings of TGD experiences and discusses the undeniable connection between gender euphoria, trans joy, and occupation. Finally, actionable steps are offered to ensure the ways of thinking about occupation from a place of centering joy can be integrated in tangible and impactful ways.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.043
Scholarly communication0.0120.014
Open science0.0020.013
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.156
GPT teacher head0.533
Teacher spread0.376 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Occupational ScienceSame topicOccupational Therapy Practice and ResearchFrench-language works237,207