MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2270293868 · doi:10.1037/sgd0000130

“Without this, I would for sure already be dead”: A qualitative inquiry regarding suicide protective factors among trans adults.

2015· article· en· W2270293868 on OpenAlexaffabout
Chérie Moody, Nate Fuks, Sandra Peláez, Nathan Grant Smith

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyQualitative researchClinical psychologySocial psychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite an alarmingly high rate of attempted suicide among trans adults, few studies have investigated suicide protective factors among this population. The current study was aimed at identifying suicide protective factors among trans adults using a qualitative methodology. A sample of self-identified trans adults (N = 133) was recruited from LGBT LISTSERVs across Canada. Participant were predominantly White and ranged in age from 18 to 75 years old (M = 37). Qualitative data were collected online via open-ended questions and analyzed using thematic network analysis. A hybrid inductive-deductive coding framework was created by combining published suicide protective factors and participants' responses. Five organizing themes were identified, namely social support, gender identity-related factors, transition-related factors, individual difference factors, and reasons for living. RESULTS provide important insights for suicide prevention workers and mental/medical health professionals who work to promote the health and well-being of trans clients and their families. Clinical implications are discussed, such as the importance of aiding trans clients who seek transition-related care to gain access to care in a timely manner. Language: en

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.238
Threshold uncertainty score0.970

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.336
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.148 · 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

Citations89
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender DiversitySame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207