Building knowledge to improve access to inclusive and equitable care for trans and gender-diverse survivors of sexual assault and intimate partner violence: a qualitative research protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Intimate partner violence (IPV) and sexual assault are pervasive public health and human rights concerns that disproportionately impact trans and gender-diverse (TGD) individuals. Experiences of cisgenderism and transphobia, compounded by racism and other forms of discrimination and structural violence, can hinder access to appropriate supports in a safe and non-stigmatising environment across a variety of sectors, including but not limited to healthcare, social services, criminal justice, and legal. TGD individuals may also have unique health and social needs requiring support that is not yet in place. Recent research has identified the need to better understand barriers to accessing support for TGD survivors of IPV and sexual assault as a top priority. This study aims to address this need for evidence to facilitate improved access to inclusive and equitable services for TGD survivors. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This qualitative study will involve semi-structured interviews with approximately 60 adult TGD survivors of IPV and/or sexual assault who wanted to access, attempted to access, or used services. A diverse array of participants from across Canada will be recruited via purposeful and snowball sampling through partner organisations, Peer Leader Advisors and their networks, as well as promotion in physical and virtual spaces (eg, flyers and social media). An interview guide was developed based on Levesque's access to care model. Virtual interviews will be thematically analysed using Braun and Clarke's iterative phases of reflexive thematic analysis. An intersectionality lens will be applied throughout the research process. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research Ethics Board approval was obtained from Women's College Hospital (WCH REB #: 2023-0033-E). Findings will be shared in peer-reviewed publications, at academic conferences, and through the burgeoning trans-LINK Canada Network WebPortal (https://www.translinknetwork.com/) using a variety of media, including newsletters, infographics, and webinars.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.065 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".