MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4324028586 · doi:10.1089/lgbt.2022.0359

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression Change Efforts and Suicidality: Evidence, Challenges, and Future Research Directions

2023· article· en· W4324028586 on OpenAlexafffund
Trevor Goodyear, Jorge Andrés Delgado‐Ron, Florence Ashley, Rod Knight, Travis Salway

Bibliographic record

VenueLGBT Health · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsBC Centre for Disease ControlUniversity of TorontoUniversité de MontréalSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute on Drug AbuseCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchKillam TrustsMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsTransgenderSexual orientationContext (archaeology)Gender identityPerspective (graphical)LegislatureExpression (computer science)Identity (music)PsychologyCriminologyPolitical scienceSocial psychologySociologyGender studiesLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sexual orientation and gender identity and expression change efforts (SOGIECE) aim to deny or suppress nonheterosexual and transgender identities. SOGIECE, including "conversion practices," are controversial and remain prevalent despite contemporary legislative bans and denouncement of these harmful practices from numerous health profession organizations. Recent work has questioned the validity of epidemiological studies associating SOGIECE with suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts. This perspective article addresses such critiques, arguing that the balance of available evidence indicates SOGIECE contribute to suicidality, while proposing methods to better account for structural context and the multitude of factors that may explain both SOGIECE attendance and suicidality.

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)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.073
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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.210

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.073
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0070.009
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.508
GPT teacher head0.550
Teacher spread0.043 · 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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLGBT HealthSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207