Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper re-imagines the governance of artificial intelligence (AI) through a transfeminist lens, focusing on challenges of power, participation, and injustice, and on opportunities for advancing equity, community-based resistance, and transformative change. AI governance is a field of research and practice seeking to maximize benefits and minimize harms caused by AI systems. Unfortunately, AI governance practices are frequently ineffective at preventing AI systems from harming people and the environment, with historically marginalized groups such as trans people being particularly vulnerable to harm. Building upon trans and feminist theories of ethics, I introduce an approach to transfeminist AI governance. Applying a transfeminist lens in combination with a critical self-reflexivity methodology, I retroactively reinterpret findings from three empirical studies of AI governance practices in Canada and globally. In three reflections on my findings, I show that large-scale AI governance systems structurally prioritize the needs of industry over marginalized communities. As a result, AI governance is limited by power imbalances and exclusionary norms. My reflections reveal that re-grounding AI governance in transfeminist ethical principles can support AI governance researchers, practitioners, and organizers in addressing those limitations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.073 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".