MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072561266 · doi:10.1080/00223890903228463

Cross-National Replication of the Gender Identity Interview for Children

2009· article· en· W2072561266 on OpenAlexaffabout
Madeleine S. C. Wallien, Lena C. Quilty, Thomas D. Steensma, Devita Singh, Susan L. Lambert, Annie Leroux, Allison Owen-Anderson, Sarah J. Kibblewhite, Susan J. Bradley, Peggy T. Cohen‐Kettenis, Kenneth J. Zucker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Personality Assessment · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Roles and Identity Studies
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyIdentity (music)ConfusionGender identityDevelopmental psychologyGender Identity DisorderPsychometricsConfirmatory factor analysisClinical psychologyTest validitySocial psychologyStructural equation modeling

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We administered the Gender Identity Interview for Children, a 12-item child-informant measure, to children referred clinically for gender identity problems in Toronto, Ontario, Canada (N = 329) and Amsterdam, The Netherlands (N = 228) and 173 control children. Confirmatory factor analysis identified a Cognitive Gender Confusion factor (4 items) and an Affective Gender Confusion factor (8 items). Patients from both clinics had a significantly higher deviant total score than the controls, and the Dutch patients had a significantly higher deviant score than the Toronto patients. In this cross-national study, we are the first to report on the validity of this measure to discriminate children with gender identity disorder from controls outside of North America.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.344 · 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

Citations71
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Personality AssessmentSame topicGender Roles and Identity StudiesFrench-language works237,207