Gender Recognition Act (GRA) 2004: evaluation and policy options
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current research project was commissioned by the Northern Ireland Department of Finance in May 2021. Three general goals were agreed: 1) To carry out research on the performance of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 in this jurisdiction 2) To assess the available policy options: 1. No change – retaining the Gender Recognition Act 2004, 2. Self-declaratory system 3. Mixed system 4. Retaining the current age limit of 18 or lowering it. We additionally assess the potential impact of those options on the wider community relevant stakeholders 3) To make evidence-based recommendations for future policy in this area. To address these goals, we proposed and agreed on a mixed-method approach, using multiple levels of analysis. Data was synthesised from different, but complementary sources, in order to gain a multifaceted perspective on the current topic, including reviews and analyses of policy and scientific literature, as well as primary quantitative and qualitative sources. This mixed-methods approach combines key stakeholder views, interpretations and responses, and synthesises other recent research literature and findings. As such, this approach provides: • Insights to understand attitudes towards potential reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004. These insights may inform future consultations and government decisions on policy options regarding gender recognition • An in-depth, comparative interpretation of experiences in relation to gender recognition and official gender recognition processes in Northern Ireland • Identification of current controversies in the area of gender recognition, as well as an understanding of the benefits and possible sources of resistance to policies, to reflect people’s reactions to particular proposal for policy change.
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 | 0.208 | 0.228 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.003 |
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".