IMPROVING THE ASSESSMENT OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH WHO PRESENT WITH GENDER DYSPHORIA: An investigation into patient and parent satisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Practitioners working with gender non-conforming children and youth ascribe to general guidelines based on the World Professional Association for Transgender Health Standards of Care for the Health of Transsexual, Transgender, and Gender Nonconforming People (2012). These guidelines inform clinical practice and assessment and emphasize the need for gender affirming care, but they do not include strict treatment criteria. Consequently, there are multiple perspectives and approaches in the field regarding effective assessment and treatment of gender diverse and transgender clients. Given the ongoing debate around best practices, the current exploratory research study investigates the perspectives and satisfaction of transgender youth and their parents actively seeking out gender health assessments (e.g., hormone readiness assessments). Twenty-five parents and 22 youth who were accessing gender health services through a community outpatient clinic completed a questionnaire about the gender health assessment process. Survey data was analyzed using descriptive statistics, and portions analyzed using thematic analysis. Similar responsepatterns were found between groups and themes emerged surrounding the need for an individualized approach to care. This study aims to increase clinical understanding of the experiences of those seeking gender health assessment services to inform and improve practices to better serve this community.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".