Situational Fluidity and the Use of Identity Labels in Interactions
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 number of people who identify as LGBTQ+ more than doubled in the past decade, and with this growth has come an upsurge of expressive identity labels. However, that there are more labels available does not explain how people decide which to use. On the basis of 52 interviews, the authors show that LGBTQ+ people adopt multiple terms and adjust their usage relative to the interactional demands at hand. Inspired by research in psychology and population studies on sexual fluidity, the authors call the sociological variant situational fluidity. Two pathways motivate it. First, respondents anchor newer labels with established terms in the interest of smoother interpersonal interactions. Second, anticipating resistance encourages some individuals to alter their preferred labels in order to buffer against possible policing or pushback. This process-based account offers an alternative to traditional linear models that propose the achievement of a self that is articulated with a single and stable term.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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