MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3155075319 · doi:10.1177/10748407211001559

An Integrative Review of Experiences Parenting Transgender and Gender Diverse Children

2021· review· en· W3155075319 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Amy Warner, Caroline Dorsen, Ann-Margaret Dunn Navarra, Sally S. Cohen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Nursing · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransgenderPsychologyGender identityDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyPsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transgender and gender diverse (TGD) children face increased behavioral health risks including suicidal behaviors and substance abuse. Parental affirmation is associated with behavioral health outcomes similar to non-TGD peers. This integrative review synthesizes and appraises evidence regarding experiences of parenting a TGD child in the United States or Canada from 2008 to 2018. Most parents across these 15 studies described affirming their child's gender at time of interview. Parents reported initial interpersonal processes (emotions, concerns, beliefs), sought education (frequently online), and described interactions with family members and professionals that were not always affirming. Parents accessed support groups but described their own well-being as a low priority relative to the child's needs. Parents' own needs for well-being may affect the process of parenting a TGD child and should be explored. Future research should address the experiences of non-parent family members and participants from more diverse backgrounds. Nursing education must consistently address gender affirming care.

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)0.007
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.198
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Family NursingSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207