MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392926859 · doi:10.1186/s13690-024-01270-z

Integrating perspectives of transgender and gender-diverse youth, family members, and professionals to support their health and wellbeing – a mixed-method study protocol

2024· article· en· W4392926859 on OpenAlexaff
Julie Servais, Bram Vanhoutte, Sara Aguirre-Sánchez-Beato, Isabelle Aujoulat, Cynthia Kraus, Guy T’Sjoen, Sandra Tricas‐Sauras, Isabelle Godin

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Public Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsChamplain Regional College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransgenderViewpointsParticipatory action researchFocus groupQuality of life (healthcare)PsychologyMedicineNursingSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The current literature highlights a strong link between the poor health outcomes of transgender and gender diverse (TGD) individuals and their negative experiences in various areas of life. Most of these publications rely on adults' memories, lacking a focus on the current experiences and needs of young transgender and gender-diverse individuals. Furthermore, previous studies on support for these young people often solely consider the perspectives of TGD adults or professionals and rarely involve parents' viewpoints. METHODS: This study will use a mixed sequential method with a participatory approach. Firstly, the qualitative phase will explore the difficulties and needs of TGD (15-20 years old) and of the families and professionals who support them. Results from this part will be used to develop the questionnaire for the quantitative phase, with the help of a community board. Secondly, based on participatory epidemiological research, the quantitative phase will use an intersectional perspective to measure the impact of individual and structural factors on the quality of life and well-being of transgender and gender-diverse young people. Finally, a co-creation phase will be undertaken to formulate recommendations based on the results of the first two phases. DISCUSSION: This research aims at better understanding the influence of gender identity on the quality of life and health of TGD young people and their families and to identify protective and risk factors that affect their vulnerabilities. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the Erasme Faculty Hospital (CCB B4062023000140). As this research is participatory and part of a PhD dissertation, we aim to disseminate the results through our partners' networks and structures locally, and internationally through conferences and peer-reviewed journals.

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)0.052
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0520.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0340.006

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 head0.155
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.325 · 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
GenreProtocol

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Public HealthSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207