Details of “conversion therapy” practices and concordance with legislative definition: Findings from a non-probability community-based survey in Canada, 2020
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background “Conversion therapy” practices (CTP) refer to a heterogeneous set of treatments and activities that share the common goal of suppressing, “repairing,” or otherwise preventing expressions of transgender, lesbian, gay, bisexual, or queer identities. This study aimed to elicit details from those with direct experience and assess concordance between CTP experiences and the definition of CTP included in federal legislation aiming to deter CTP. Methods We conducted an anonymous online survey of adults (>18 years) in Canada between August 18 and December 2, 2020. Participants were recruited through social media, CTP survivor networks, and word-of-mouth. Results Of 51 respondents with direct experience of CTP, 16 were transgender, 34 were cisgender. Most respondents lived in Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, or Quebec. 49% experienced CTP in a licensed healthcare provider office, 45% at a faith-based organization, and 36% at an unlicensed counselor office (categories not mutually exclusive). Age at first CTP experience ranged from 2 to 44 years of age (mean: 17.8 years; median: 17 years). Respondents experienced CTP for <1 year to 33 years (mean: 4.6 years; median: 2 years). Fifty percent of those with direct experience of CTP indicated that the proposed legislative definition of CTP did not fully encompass their personal experience. Interpretation Results from this Canadian survey of adults with experience of CTP indicate that legislative attempts to ban CTP must be expanded (e.g., to include adults and practices that do not concord with previously drafted definitions) and paired with other prevention efforts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".