ETHICS IN CHILD AND YOUTH CARE PRACTICE WITH TRANSGENDER YOUTH
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Issues that arise in child and youth care practice with transgender (trans) youth and their families can be complex and ethically challenging. While many trans youth are thriving and have strong family and social supports, others face family conflict and experience negative health outcomes linked to societal stigma. The purpose of this paper is to explore how four ethical approaches — bioethics, rights-based ethics, relational ethics, and justice-doing — may be applied to practice situations involving trans youth and their families. This paper is grounded in the gender affirmative model of care and integrates empirical evidence, critical thinking, and explicit argumentation in ethical analysis. Following a brief overview of evidence related to trans youth care, case vignettes are analyzed using diverse ethical approaches. These approaches draw on a variety of philosophical and disciplinary traditions. However, the analyses consistently lead to three imperatives: providing support and affirmation for trans youth; supporting families to support their youth; and fighting injustice where it impedes these goals.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.032 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".