Trans‐Cending the Mononormativity of Relationship Therapy: An Intersectional Framework for Increasing Competency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to disciplinary standards, therapists offering relationship and family therapy are ethically obligated to inform their work with published knowledge about specific client factors to practice competently. Relationship and family therapy research and resources, however, generally lack flexibility in their application to relationships that aren't captured by dominant discourses of relationship composition. The challenges many therapists face in working with clients who have multiple marginalized identities are most often located within the individuals and relationships (rather than within the lack of systemic support available to inform competent practice). In response, we propose an intentionally intersectional structure a therapist could follow to systemically analyze, synthesize, and utilize currently available research toward more ethically and responsively competent practice and apply it to transgender and nonbinary clients in consensually nonmonogamous relationships.
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 | 0.036 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.094 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".