MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896088078 · doi:10.1080/00981389.2018.1532941

Profound health-care discrimination experienced by transgender people: rapid systematic review

2018· review· en· W2896088078 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Work in Health Care · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransgenderHealth careInvisibilityTransgender peopleHealth equityMedicinePopulationTransgender womenTransgender PersonSexual minorityPsychologySexual orientationNursingGerontologyFamily medicinePublic healthSocial psychologyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Environmental healthMen who have sex with menPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transgender people experience interpersonal and structural barriers which prevent them from accessing culturally and medically competent health care. This rapid systematic review examined the prevalence of health-care discrimination among transgender people in the U.S. and drew comparisons with sexual minority samples and the general U.S. population. Eight primary studies with 35 prevalence estimates were analyzed. Transgender populations experience profound rates of discrimination within the U.S. health-care system. Compared to sexual minorities, transgender participants appear to be more compromised in their access to health care. Service providers must change structural inequities which contribute to transgender people's invisibility.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.546
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.394 · 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