<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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".