MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391428009 · doi:10.1002/pits.23157

<i>When we go to ask for help, they don't understand how to help us</i>: Understanding how youth with childhood histories of conduct problems link sexuality and gender to school‐based service use

2024· article· en· W4391428009 on OpenAlexafffund
Shayla Chilliak, Alexa Martin‐Storey, Michèle Déry, Caroline E. Temcheff, Mélanie Lapalme

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology in the Schools · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Roles and Identity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeMcGill University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyHuman sexualityAsk priceDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyGender studiesSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Gender and, to a lesser extent, sexual identity, are relevant factors in understanding variance in the prevalence, consequences, and treatment of conduct problems. The current study uses thematic analysis to explore how youth with early‐onset conduct problems and extensive histories of school‐based service use perceive gender and sexuality as impacting their service use experiences. Qualitative analysis of interviews with 41 youth (17–21 years old; 53.7% women) yielded themes pertaining to gender, sexual identity, and discrimination in service use contexts. Identified themes included homophobia in service use and adjacent school contexts, stereotypes around masculinity and femininity as conditioning peer and school staff's behavior, and salience of sexuality across developmental stages and historical timeframes. Results suggest that increased school staff training and school‐based interventions be implemented to support gender and sexual diversity, both within services for conduct problems and more broadly in school contexts. In particular, the current findings highlight homophobia as a factor limiting boys' access to mental health services.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.630
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.213
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.148 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychology in the SchoolsSame topicGender Roles and Identity StudiesFrench-language works237,207