MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1673559203 · doi:10.1300/j461v01n02_06

Achieving Competent Family Practice with Same-Sex Parents

2005· article· en· W1673559203 on OpenAlexaff
Jacky Coates, Richard Sullivna

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of GLBT Family Studies · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeterosexismPremisePsychologyLesbianCompetence (human resources)Developmental psychologySocial psychologyContext (archaeology)Epistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to the increasing recognition of same-sex marriage in different jurisdictions and growing numbers of parents raising children in the context of a same-sex relationship, it is becoming ever more important for family therapists to attain clinical competence in working with families headed by same-sex parents. This paper takes as its premise that good intentions and general acceptance of diversity are not sufficient in working with this population of families. Rather, clinical competence rests on experience working with lesbian and gay clients and knowledge of the impact of heterosexism on parenting in the context of same-sex relationships. Equally critical to competent family therapy practice is a theoretical framework that pulls together complementary concepts from different bodies of theory to analyze family structures and functions in the social context of heterosexism. To this end, this paper reviews family systems theory, structural social work, ecological systems theory and queer theory with an eye to culling complementary constructs relevant to working with same-sex parents. Specific aspects of family functioning such as maintenance of boundaries around and within families and role differentiation between parents are then explored using this theoretical framework. Finally, implications for the clinician working with families led by same-sex parents are reviewed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.312
Threshold uncertainty score0.513

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations12
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of GLBT Family StudiesSame topicReproductive Health and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207