MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226377621 · doi:10.1080/19361653.2021.2009080

Artistic expression as a source of resilience for transgender and gender diverse young people

2022· article· en· W4226377621 on OpenAlexaff
Ashley Austin, Michael P. Dentato, Joshua Holzworth, Roxanna S. Ast, Anthony P. Verdino, Edward J. Alessi, Andrew D. Eaton, Shelley L. Craig

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of LGBT Youth · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExpression (computer science)TransgenderOnline and offlineFeelingPsychologyPsychological resilienceSocial psychologyAgency (philosophy)Grounded theoryCoping (psychology)Qualitative researchSociologyClinical psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a paucity of research exploring sources of resilience among transgender and gender diverse (TGD) young people with multiple marginalized identities. Information and communication technologies (ICTs) offer unique opportunities for authentic self-expression, which is not always possible offline. The primary aims of this study were to understand unique sources of resilience among TGD youth in their online and offline lives. Using photo elicitation and grounded theory methods, we conducted online in-depth interviews with TGD young people (N = 29) between the ages of 14–25 across the United States identifying with at least one of the following social statuses: (a) person of color, (b) immigrant, or (c) living in a rural area. Four themes were identified from the data, with both online and offline artistic expression being viewed as a: (1) form of authentic self-expression; (2) coping mechanism; (3) way to connect to others; and (4) pathway toward agency. Findings advance understanding about the use of artistic expression as an underexamined source of resilience among TGD youth with multiple marginalized identities. Within clinical settings, options for TGD youth to participate in various forms of expressive art may improve engagement and enhance youths’ abilities to authentically express their thoughts, feelings, and experiences to promote healing and growth.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.006
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of LGBT YouthSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207