Bibliographic record
Abstract
Until quite recently, investigations of gender/sex development operated from a baseline assumption that gender/sex is dichotomous or binary. Most such studies constructed gender/sex outside of or adjacent to specific cultures, and for the most part studied children from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic (WEIRD) countries. In this paper I first advocate for four research guidelines-inclusivity, epistemic justice, materiality, and empiricism. I sketch out the historical background that still shapes contemporary studies into the psychology of gender/sex identity in infants and toddlers. Next, I point toward methods for the study of gender/sex in infants and toddlers that have the potential to make nonbinary development visible and to develop culturally diverse concepts of identity development. Finally, I challenge psychologists and others to view and operationalize the study of identity as a relational, phenomenological entity rather than a fixed feature of the individual psyche.
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 | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.068 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".