Reckoning with our past and righting our future: Report from the Behavior Therapy Task Force on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity/Expression Change Efforts (SOGIECEs)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual orientation and gender identity/expression change efforts (SOGIECEs) are discredited practices that are associated with serious negative effects and incompatible with modern standards for clinical practice. Despite evidence linking SOGIECEs with serious iatrogenic effects, and despite support for LGBTQ+-affirmative care alternatives, SOGIECE practices persist. In the 1970s and 1980s, Behavior Therapy published articles testing and/or endorsing SOGIECEs, thereby contributing to their overall development, acceptance, and use. The Behavior Therapy Task Force on SOGIECEs was assembled to conduct a rigorous review of the SOGIECE articles published in Behavior Therapy and to decide whether, and what, formal action(s) should be taken on these articles. This report provides a detailed review of the historic SOGIECE literature published in Behavior Therapy and outlines the Task Force’s deliberative and democratic processes resulting in actions to: (1) add prominent advisory information to k=24 SOGIECE papers in the form of digital “black box” disclaimers that caution readers that the SOGIECE practices tested or described in these papers are inconsistent with modern standards, (2) offset organizational financial benefits from the publication of these papers, and (3) promote LGBTQ+-affirmative practices. SOGIECEs are not the only concerning practices across the field’s history, and the pages of today’s scientific journals include practices that will be at odds with tomorrow’s moral standards. This report calls for precautionary measures and editorial safeguards to minimize the future likelihood and impact of problematic published scholarship, including the need to fully include those with relevant lived experiences in all aspects of clinical science and peer review.
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 | 0.090 | 0.201 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".