Lessons from a community-based participatory research study with transgender and gender nonconforming youth and their families
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community-based participatory research (CBPR) involves community members collaborating with academic investigators in each step of the research process. CBPR may be especially useful for research involving marginalized populations with unique perspectives and needs. In this paper, we discuss successes and challenges of using a CBPR approach for the Trans Teen and Family Narratives Project, a longitudinal mixed-methods study to examine how the family environment affects the health and well-being of transgender and gender nonconforming (TGN) youth. We describe considerations for using a CBPR approach with this population, including defining the community of TGN youth and families, engaging the community in the research process, managing conflicting agendas for community partner meetings, addressing insider/outsider status of the researchers, resolving researcher/community tensions regarding data collection tools, integrating academic and community members into a cohesive research team, developing safety plans to address participant suicidality disclosures, and differentiating the role of academics as researchers vs. advocates. We conclude by sharing lessons learned, which can inform future research to address the needs of TGN youth and families.
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 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 | 0.010 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it