MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7019305773

Frequency of singular they for gender stereotypes and the influence of the queer community

2021· article· en· W7019305773 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueCIIS Digital Commons (California Institute of Integral Studies) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Studies in Language
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPronounPerceptionNounVariation (astronomy)Antecedent (behavioral psychology)Style (visual arts)Identity (music)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Singular they has been denounced in formal grammars since the mid-18th century (see Bodine 1975; Paterson 2014), yet it dates to at least the 14th century (Balhorn 2004; Curzan 2003), persevering in both writing and speech (e.g., Baranowski 2002; Balhorn 2009; Newman 1992; Strahan 2008). Linguistic investigations of pronominal use suggest an envelope of variation (e.g., LaScotte 2016; Maryna 1978; Meyers 1990) in which speakers make choices based on a multiplicity of factors (e.g., gender stereotypicality, antecedent type). The role of LGBTQ+ community remains less examined. Do aspects of identity impact an individual’s choice of pronoun for singular generic nouns (e.g., a student), and is that dependent on the referent’s perceived gender? A 2018 survey garnered responses across Canada and the United States from 623 participants (289 LGBTQ+, 196 “queer-adjacent”, 131 non LGBTQ+, and 7 no response). The stimuli consisted of six filler questions interspersed among three targets (mechanic, secretary, student). LaScotte’s (2016) open-ended student question was replicated, and Martyna’s (1978) fill-in-the-blank style was modelled for mechanic and secretary—nouns with perceived gender stereotypes (masculine and feminine respectively; Haines, Deaux, & Lofaro 2016). Finally, participants rated occupations on a sliding scale for perception of role performance (masculine to feminine, with gender neutral at the midpoint). Quantifying the frequency of third-person pronouns across all occupations resulted in 2249 tokens split between they (n=1712), he (n=269), she (n=189), and he/she (n=78). Overall, singular they prevails. But, its patterns of use are not parallel. Mechanic and secretary remain gendered (he and she respectively), whereas student is gender-neutral (they). These results are reflected by the ratings: mechanic skews masculine, secretary skews feminine, and student remains neutral. Across all occupations, non-LGBTQ+ participants use singular they the least frequently, followed by queer-adjacent participants, and then LGBTQ+ participants. Non-binary participants use singular they at the highest rate amongst the LGBTQ+ participants (i.e., more frequently than LGBTQ+ men and women). Additionally, participation in events has an impact: singular they is used more by those who attend LGBTQ+ events. Thus, this study provides empirical evidence about the multifaceted interactions of identity and network, as well as uncovering persistent gender biases.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCIIS Digital Commons (California Institute of Integral Studies)Same topicGender Studies in LanguageFrench-language works237,207