MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

“Nobody has written the book about what non-binary people should put forward in relationships”: Exploring gender equity in relationships of queer, trans, and non-monogamous young women and non-binary youth in British Columbia, Canada

2024· article· en· W4392765906 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kalysha Closson, Gem Y. Lee, Zoë Osborne, Colby Hangle, Tadiwa Nemutambwe, Anita Raj, Ivan Leonce, Angela Kaida

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Science & Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsPHS Community Services SocietySimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQueerGender studiesLesbianTransgenderSociologyHeteronormativityVirginity testThematic analysisTransphobiaPsychologyNegotiationSocial psychologyQualitative researchSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding the unique ways in which queer, trans, and non-monogamous young women and non-binary youth navigate and negotiate equitable intimate relationships is a first step toward strong research, programs/resources, and policies to support healthy relationship dynamics across the life course. Using a youth-engaged collaborative Reflexive Thematic Analysis, we aimed to explore how youth of diverse genders and relationship experiences understand gender equity in their relationships. Thirty cis- and transgender inclusive young women (46.7%) and non-binary youth (53.3%) aged 17-29 who were in a current (76.6%) or recent (in past 12 months, 23.4%) non-heterosexual and/or non-monogamous intimate relationship and residing in British Columbia, Canada, completed qualitative interviews between August and November 2022. Of the 30 youth, 53.3% reported having experience living as a trans person, 33.3% identified only as bisexual and 10% identified as only lesbian or gay, whereas the remaining 56.7% identified with ≥1 of: queer, pansexual, and demisexual. Participants identified that relationship equity requires: 1) Moving away from cis-heteronormative conceptualizations of gender roles and norms; 2) Actively working to dismantle hierarchal power structures by sharing power, responsibility, labour, and decision-making; and 3) Accommodating and affirming each person's unique needs and identities in a relationship. For theme one, youth further described the ways in which they re-imagined relationship norms and discussed the various challenges to resisting ingrained hierarchical cis-heteronormativity. This research contributes a greater understanding of how to create equitable and healthy relationships and has important implications for healthcare providers, educators, and policymakers working with queer, transgender, and non-monogamous youth.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueSocial Science & Medicine→Same topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy→French-language works237,207→