We'd Like to Ask You Some Questions, But We Have to Find You First: An Internet-Based Study of Lesbian Clients in Therapy with Lesbian Feminist Therapists
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY This paper explores some issues related to an Internet-based study dealing with lesbian clients' perceptions of their lesbian feminist therapists. A 60-item questionnaire was posted on a Web site so respondents could complete it online, submitting answers anonymously through a forwarding service. Respondents were recruited through postings to 20 listservs that focus on gay/lesbian/bisexual issues or the psychology of women. Data collection proceeded rapidly, with 182 responses within seven weeks. Results indicated that the therapist's sexual and philosophical orientation was important to the client, but that the clients tended to make assumptions about the latter. Specific activities typical of feminist therapy were often missing or were not recollected by clients. The advantages of using the Internet to draw a wide range of respondents is set against the problems of generalizability, the difficulty in communicating directly with respondents, and the sample bias inevitable in using self-identified volunteers who have Internet access. KEYWORDS: Feminist therapistsgay and lesbian listserve groupsweb-based survey
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it