MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Physical, Sexual, and Intimate Partner Violence Among Transgender and Gender-Diverse Individuals

2024· article· en· W4400001376 on OpenAlexaff
Kalysha Closson, Sabrina C. Boyce, Nicole E. Johns, David J. Inwards-Breland, Edwin Elizabeth Thomas, Anita Raj

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Network Open · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransgenderHarassmentPsychologyDomestic violenceDemographyPhysical abusePoison controlClinical psychologySuicide preventionMedicineSocial psychologyEnvironmental healthSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) communities experience disproportionate levels of violence, yet due to limitations in measuring TGD identity, few state-representative estimates are available. Objective: To assess gender identity differences in experiences of violence among adults. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional data from the 2023 California Violence Experiences (CalVEX) survey, weighted to provide state-representative estimates, was used to assess associations between gender identity and past-year experiences of violence among adults 18 years and older. Data were analyzed from June to December 2023. Exposure: Gender identity (cisgender women, cisgender men, transgender women, transgender men, and nonbinary individuals). Main Outcomes and Measures: Experience of physical violence (including physical abuse and threat or use of a weapon), sexual violence (verbal sexual harassment, homophobic or transphobic slurs, cyber and physically aggressive sexual harassment, and forced sex), and intimate partner violence (IPV; emotional, physical, or sexual violence) using age-adjusted logistic regression. Results: In total 3560 individuals (weighted cumulative response rate, 5%) completed the 2023 CalVEX survey, with 1978 cisgender women, 1431 cisgender men, 35 transgender women, 52 transgender men, and 64 nonbinary respondents (mean [SD] age, 47.1 [17.5] years; 635 [17%] were Asian, 839 [37%] were Hispanic, and 1159 [37%] were White). Past-year physical violence was reported by 22 transgender men (43%), 9 transgender women (24%), and 9 nonbinary respondents (14%). Past-year sexual violence was reported by 23 transgender men (42%), 11 transgender women (14%), and 31 nonbinary respondents (56%). Compared with cisgender women, transgender women and transgender men had greater risk of past-year physical violence (any form) (transgender women adjusted incidence rate ratio [AIRR], 6.7; 95% CI, 2.5-18.2; transgender men AIRR, 9.7; 95% CI, 5.3-17.7), as well as past-year IPV (any form) (transgender women AIRR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.3-8.0; transgender men AIRR, 6.7; 95% CI, 4.0-11.3). Relative to cisgender women, transgender men (AIRR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.7-5.1) and nonbinary respondents (AIRR, 3.3; 95% CI, 2.1-5.2) had greater risk of past-year sexual violence (any form). Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study of adults in California, results showed that TGD individuals, especially transgender men, are at higher risk of experiencing all forms of violence relative to cisgender women. Results highlight the need for gender-affirming violence prevention and intervention services as well as policies that protect TGD individuals from discriminatory violence.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.382
Threshold uncertainty score0.829

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations30
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Network OpenSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207