MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2582027792 · doi:10.1521/prev.2017.104.1.1

Troubling Gender or Engendering Trouble? The Problem With Gender Dysphoria in Psychoanalysis

2017· review· en· W2582027792 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ayelet R. Barkai

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Psychoanalytic Review · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLeading Edge Endowment Fund
KeywordsGender dysphoriaPsychoanalytic theoryGender Identity DisorderGender identityPsychologyHomosexualityPsychoanalysisIdentity (music)TransgenderPsychotherapistDevelopmental psychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reviews existing case reports in the psychoanalytic literature of children diagnosed with gender identity disorder (GID), now called gender dysphoria. It concentrates on a review of problems and psychoanalytic dilemmas inherent in the use of the term GID and elucidates the concurrent quandaries this term both signifies and is symptomatic of. The focus is on reports of child psychoanalyses published during or after 1991, when the American Psychoanalytic Association formally adopted a nondiscrimination policy against homosexuality. These cases reflect common problematic themes in these treatments, for example, the lack of neutrality in specifying the treatment goal of same-gender identification. This paper explores the effects of these problems on the treatments, raises questions regarding the emphasis on gender in the treatments, and discusses an alternative psychoanalytic approach to children with gender variation.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.382
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.125 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Psychoanalytic ReviewSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207