MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396545701 · doi:10.1521/jsyt.2023.42.4.42

A Framework for Conceptualizing Black Trans Youth Suicide: Combining the Interpersonal Theory of Suicide With Intersectionality Theory

2023· article· en· W4396545701 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Ruthann C. Hewett, Nadya R. Chavies, Viena Murillo Paredes, Shannon Carnahan, Sade Prithwie, Tracy Robinson‐Wood

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Systemic Therapies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences North
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntersectionalityInterpersonal violencePsychologyInterpersonal communicationSociologySocial psychologyGender studiesSuicide preventionPoison controlMedicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article we frame the crisis of Black transgender and gender-nonconforming (TGNC) youth suicide in the context of interpersonal theory of suicide, intersectionality theory, postmodern therapeutic approaches, and critical suicidology in promoting liberatory care. The constructs of each theory are illuminated by a case study that explores the narrative of a Black trans femme teen as she navigates mental health treatment after a suicide attempt. Opportunities for clinician learning, advocacy, and best practice are discussed. Practical resources are provided in case excerpts to enhance clinicians’ understanding of topics such as gender-affirming care, respectful language, and intersections of anti-Black racism and transphobia. We close with a discussion of future directions for skill development and cultural humility in novice and seasoned providers working with this community.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.035
Scholarly communication0.0060.010
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Systemic TherapiesSame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207