MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995337224 · doi:10.1080/15532739.2013.824845

Attachment and Shame in Gender-Nonconforming Children and Their Families: Toward a Theoretical Framework for Evaluating Clinical Interventions

2013· article· en· W1995337224 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Transgenderism · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotions and Moral Behavior
Canadian institutionsRainbow Health Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShamePsychological interventionPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyAttachment theoryIdentity (music)Social psychologyPsychotherapistPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT There is currently no consensus over how best to approach work with gender-nonconforming children and their families. We turn to attachment theory to develop a framework for assessing the impact of two different approaches, suggesting that new understandings of links between shame, shame proneness, depression, and identity might provide key questions to consider in developing services for these children. We outline arguments from both sides of the debate, highlighting the work of 2 leading clinicians. We suggest that supportive approaches are more consistent with an attachment-based framework while approaches aimed at correcting gender-nonconforming behavior risk increasing attachment dysfunction.

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.755
Threshold uncertainty score0.597

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.177
GPT teacher head0.494
Teacher spread0.317 · 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