MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311063921 · doi:10.32920/ihtp.v2i3.1652

Exploring health care for transgender people in the Brazilian health system: Qualitative descriptive-interpretative study

2022· article· en· W4311063921 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mateus Aparecido de Faria, Tiago Sousa Paiva, Andressa Marques Cornelli, Carolina Feijó Bitencourt Voigt, Cristianne Maria Famer Rocha, Celina Maria Módena

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Health Trends and Perspectives · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransgenderMetropolitan areaConstitutionQualitative researchDescriptive researchPopulationHealth careExploratory researchSociologyHealthcare systemPolitical sciencePublic relationsMedicineGender studiesEnvironmental healthSocial scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The guarantee of rights in Brazil is legitimized through its Constitution of the Republic and its national health system needs to follow a list of prerogatives that include, also, transgender people. Currently there are situations in which the expectation of rights is broken and the free exercise of life of this population is prevented. This article analyzes access to health services by trans people in the health system in Brazil. The investigation was carried out in cities in the metropolitan region of a municipality in southeastern Brazil, through qualitative, exploratory and descriptive-interpretive research. The trans population faces many difficulties in accessing the services that make up the Brazilian Health System, such as the lack of qualification of health professionals, barriers to the use of the social name and structural prejudices in society.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.240
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Health Trends and PerspectivesSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207