Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chest binding is an important practice for many transmasculine individuals to achieve a flatter chest appearance and to alleviate gender dysphoria. Despite the potentially negative psychological outcomes of not chest binding, it is often considered inherently “unsafe” to bind during exercise, including circus practice, due to the potential negative physical outcomes. Policies based on these beliefs may limit or exclude trans individuals who chest bind from circus participation. In this narrative review, a holistic model that considers risk as a neutral construct is used to rationally assess the evidence of physical and psychosocial positive and negative outcomes of chest binding. While the majority of literature has focused on negative physical outcomes, many report positive physical and psychosocial outcomes as well. The more severe physical outcomes that lead to the fear-informed dogma to avoid chest binding during exercise occur infrequently, and the risk may be considered acceptable by some trans individuals who accept a certain risk of injury through their participation in circus, and who may perceive the potential for positive outcomes to outweigh the risk of negative outcomes. Circus spaces can be inclusive by promoting a culture based on a healthy risk perspective with rational policies and informed coaches who can support individuals to make aligned decisions for themselves based on knowledge and their personal values, experiences, and goals. Application of the holistic risk framework may lead to more inclusive circus spaces and improve holistic outcomes so that individuals and circus communities can flourish. Le bandage de la poitrine est une pratique importante pour beaucoup de personnes transmasculines qui souhaitent dissimuler leurs formes et éviter la dysphorie de genre. Malgré les possibles effets néfastes d’une poitrine apparente sur le plan psychologique, le bandage est considéré comme « dangereux » durant une activité physique, notamment la pratique circassienne, en raison des risques potentiels qu’il implique sur le corps. Les règles établies sur la base de ces croyances peuvent limiter voire exclure l’accès aux arts du cirque pour les personnes trans ayant recours au bandage thoracique. Dans cet examen narratif, nous appliquons un modèle holistique qui envisage le risque comme une construction neutre afin d’évaluer de manière rationnelle les preuves des conséquences physiques et psychosociales, qu’elles soient positives ou négatives, engendrées par cette pratique. Alors qu’une grande partie de la littérature se focalise sur les répercussions néfastes pour le corps, beaucoup d’études font également état de retombées positives sur le plan physique et psychosocial. Les conséquences physiques plus graves qui alimentent un discours basé sur la peur pour dissuader le recours au bandage thoracique durant une activité physique restent rares. En pesant le pour et le contre, certaines personnes trans pourraient y voir davantage les aspects positifs et prendre le risque de se blesser au cours de leur pratique circassienne. Les espaces circassiens peuvent jouer un rôle inclusif et valoriser une culture abordant les risques de manière lucide, avec des règles rationnelles et des coachs informé·e·s, capables d’encourager chacun et chacune à prendre des décisions alignées avec elleux-mêmes en tenant compte des connaissances à disposition, mais aussi de leurs valeurs, de leurs expériences et de leurs objectifs personnels. S’inscrire dans un cadre holistique en matière de risques peut renforcer l’inclusivité des espaces dédiés aux arts du cirque et améliorer les résultats dans leur globalité pour que les personnes et les communautés circassiennes puissent pleinement s’épanouir.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.921 | 0.863 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".