Systemic barriers in mental health care for LGBTQI and gender nonconforming drama therapists and clients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Survey research was conducted to assess drama therapists’ attitudes and actions regarding lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex (LGBTQI) and gender nonconforming (GNC) communities. The article reports on institutional attitudes and actions as revealed through workplace documentation, available training and resources, and institutional environments experienced by drama therapists in training and in the field across the United States and Canada. Results indicate that drama therapists continue to work in predominantly heteronormative and cisgender normative spaces. They confront specific barriers to implementing supportive and affirming care for LGBTQI and GNC individuals which are especially pronounced in K-12 schools, geriatric centres and inpatient mental health settings. This also has a negative impact on LGBTQI and GNC identified drama therapists working in these environments. Mechanisms through which these realities are given a voice remain a priority and may be facilitated through ongoing research, continuing education and courageous advocacy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".