MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W111333196

Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Issues in Music Therapy Training and Education: The Love That Dares Not Sing Its Name /Problèmes Des Lesbiennes, Gays et Bisexuels Dans la Formation et L'éducation En Musicothérapie : L'amour Qui N'est Pas Mentionné Dans Les Chansons

2011· article· fr· W111333196 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bill Ahessy

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian journal of music therapy · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiverse Music Education Insights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLesbianHeterosexismHomosexualityPsychologySexual orientationMental healthTheme (computing)PsychoanalysisPsychotherapistGender studiesSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BackgroundLGB individuals have been referred to as a hidden minority, (Pearson, 2003). A minority who experience discrimination in educational, employment, legal and healthcare sectors, and one of the only minorities who experience familial rejection (Davies, 1996; Savin-Williams, 2003; Bowers et al. 2006).In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental illness in the Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM) III, although it was still classified as a pathology by the World Health Organisation until 1990. Historically, a turbulent relationship has existed between sexual minorities and healthcare systems (Davies & Neal, 1996). Although this has improved gready, there still exists widespread homophobia and heterosexism within these systems, and training in this area is much needed (Davies, 1996; Golding, 1997; McFarlane, 1998; King et al. 2003, Bowers et al. 2006). Psychotherapy literature has formerly held either absent or limited and stagnant views of LGB (Milton, Coyle & Legg, 2002, p. 6) and coverage of these has been minimal (Bieschke et al. 1998). However, recendy there has been a marked increase in articles and research focusing on LGB (Rodalfa & Davis, 2003). A recurring theme is the lack of attention to LGB in psychology, psychotherapy and counselling training programs, curricula and education (Clarke & Peel, 2007; Davies, 2007; Godfrey et al. 2006; Garnets & Kimmel, 2003). Davies (2007) highlights how heterosexual bias penetrates both psychotherapy literature and training programs, explaining how as a society, we have been surrounded for decades with negative scripts about sexual minorities and their relationships and so none of us has escaped its insidious and corrosive effects (Davies, 2007, p. 20).For the most part, LGB have not been adequately addressed in the field of music therapy, and consequently have been largely neglected by all but by a few authors. Chase (2004) reviewed literature on working with LGB clients and provided implications for music therapists. There have been case studies by Lee (1996) and Bruscia (1998a, 1998b, 1998c) concerning men with HIV/AIDS, and Hedigan (2005) on working with a chemically dependent male. More recendy, there has been discourse on the integration of one's sexual identity with one's identity as a music therapist (Lee, 2008; Forinash, 2009). LGB in music therapy have been largely overlooked and there has been little relevant discourse in relation to music therapy training, curricula and continuing education. It is imperative that the unique perspectives of sexual minorities are represented in music therapy and that LGB are addressed in training, if graduates are to practice competently in a gay affirmative manner (Lebolt, 1999; Eubanks-Carter et al. 2005).The lack of attention to LGB in psychotherapy training programs, curricula and education has been well documented in the literature.1 Greene (1994) notes how educational institutions can be vehicles for communicating heterosexual bias and this bias has served as an integral part of the underpinnings of theoretical and research paradigms (Greene, 1994, p. 17). In the established psychotherapy-training model LGB perspectives are often excluded, and a heterosexual lens is used in most areas from developmental psychology to therapeutic practice (Davies, 2007). In a recent survey of Canadian counselling programs it was revealed that minimal training in LGB is offered (Alderman, 2004). Furthermore, training often takes place against a backdrop of limited research and visibility of LGB issues (Grove, 2009, p. 79). This lack of attention to LGB had led trainee therapists to report that they feel unprepared and incompetent to work with LGB clients (Philips & Fisher, 1998; Bahr, 2000; Philips, 2000; Garnets & Kimmel, 2003; Alderman, 2004). Clarke & Peel (2007) emphasise that even though people may ascribe to broadly pro-gay principles LGB concerns are often ignored, excluded and marginalised in educational settings. …

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.257
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.049 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian journal of music therapySame topicDiverse Music Education InsightsFrench-language works237,207