MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402359169 · doi:10.1037/cou0000759

Associations between misgendering, invalidation, pride, community connectedness, and trauma among nonbinary adults.

2024· article· en· W4402359169 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alex E. Colson, Em Matsuno, Sebastian Barr, Ashley K. Randall

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Counseling Psychology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPridePsychologySocial connectednessSocial psychologyClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transgender and nonbinary (TNB) people experience elevated rates of posttraumatic stress (PTS) due to transphobic violence, discrimination, microaggressions, and minority stress. Nonbinary people in particular experience unique chronic minority stressors (e.g., misgendering, interpersonal invalidation) because of the assumption that gender is inherently binary. Such examples of oppression against TNB people could contribute to complex PTS (c-PTS) symptoms, which arise due to exposure to chronic, cumulative, and interpersonal trauma. This study aimed to examine how misgendering and invalidation may be associated with PTS and c-PTS symptoms among nonbinary people and whether this association is moderated by pride and community connectedness. Cross-sectional data from 610 nonbinary people living in the United States and Canada were analyzed using hierarchical linear regressions. Misgendering and invalidation had significant positive associations with PTS and c-PTS symptoms. However, pride and community connectedness were not significant moderators of these associations. Findings from this study contribute to the conceptualizations of traumatic stress among nonbinary people and provide considerations for more affirming trauma-informed care. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

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)0.002
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 score0.270
Threshold uncertainty score0.821

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.338 · 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

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Counseling PsychologySame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207