MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1554258546 · doi:10.1300/j485v08n01_03

Prevalence of Childhood Trauma in a Clinical Population of Transsexual People

2005· article· en· W1554258546 on OpenAlexaff
Darlynne Gehring, Gail Knudson

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Transgenderism · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTranssexualPsychologyPopulationGratificationSexual abuseClinical psychologyDemographyPsychiatryMedicinePoison controlSuicide preventionSocial psychologyTransgenderMedical emergencyPsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Few studies have focused on the prevalence and extent of childhood trauma in the transsexual population. In our study of 42 transsexual people (34 = natal males, 8 = natal females), 55% (n = 23) reported experiencing an unwanted sexual event before the age of 18, with the average age of initial sexual contact being 13. This sexual event differs from other clinical populations in that the unwanted sexual experiences in this sample were the consequence of adolescents satisfying their curiosity about the gender of the transsexual rather than for their own sexual gratification. Consequently, the sequalae of the unwanted sexual touches in our sample did not lead to sexualised behaviours described in the sexual abuse literature of clinical samples. Our sample also reported being: verbally abused (77%), insulted (81%), embarrassed in front of others (55%), made to feel guilty by their parents (58%) before their fifteenth birthday.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.381 · 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

Citations41
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of TransgenderismSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207