Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is an accepted article with a DOI pre-assigned that is not yet published.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 paper, 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.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".