MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007894942 · doi:10.1080/15504280802096765

Transforming Couples and Families: A Trans-Formative Therapeutic Model for Working with the Loved-Ones of Gender-Divergent Youth and Trans-Identified Adults

2008· article· en· W2007894942 on OpenAlexaff
Rupert Raj

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of GLBT Family Studies · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsSt Joseph's Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormative assessmentPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyPsychotherapistPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The recent emergence of gender-divergent youth and trans-identified adults presenting in therapy, in tandem with the scant clinical work with their partners and families, indicates a serious gap in the research literature. In addition, there is a critical need for an increase of clinically-sensitive and culturally-competent therapists who can provide support for these transforming couples and families. To be effective, such treatment interventions must be grounded in a sound body of gender-diverse and transgender knowledge. This paper identifies a number of clinical issues experienced by gender-normative partners and family members (who are often an integral part of the transforming process) who are working towards acceptance of their gender-anormative loved-ones. Effective psychotherapeutic and psychoeducational interventions to help meet the challenges facing these transforming families and couples are outlined by means of the author's Trans-formative Therapeutic Model (TfTM). The model demonstrates ways to support the partner or family member(s) in conjunction with the trans-identified or gender-divergent loved-one as a cohesive and dynamic systemic unit. Specific clinical application of the TfTM are illustrated through a case study of a young gender-divergent child and hir family.

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)0.000
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.211
Threshold uncertainty score0.587

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.202
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.152 · 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 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

Citations26
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of GLBT Family StudiesSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207