Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transgender (trans*) has been largely ignored by scholars concerned with gender and politics. Mainstream and feminist political scientists have tended to overlook LGBT issues more broadly (see for example Sulkunen et al., 2009). There is a fairly substantial body of political science literature about LGBT issues in the USA and Canada (for example Bristow and Wilson, 1993; Blasius, 2001; Werum and Winders, 2001; Currah et al., 2006; and M. Smith, 2008), whilst a range of contributions stem from Latin America (Farjado, 2006; Sanabria, 2006; Viveros, 2006; and Corrales and Pecheney, 2010) and elsewhere, including Europe (see Richardson and Monro 2012). Whilst important, the scholarship to date has primarily addressed either LGBT people taken together as a group, or lesbians and gay men. This paper addresses a gap in the literature, providing an exploration of key issues for democracy and transgender people, focusing on two forms of democracy: electoral and participatory. This paper focuses only on the EU, as dynamics are different in other parts of the world (for example, the third sex Hijras are active in electoral politics in India).
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".