Soutien et non soutien parental des jeunes trans : vers une compréhension nuancée des formes de soutien et des attentes des jeunes trans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research Framework: This article focuses on the different levels of parental support that trans youth may experience or not.Objectives: This article aims to define, from the perspective of trans youth, what parental support is, and describe how it affects their well-being.Methodology: The results are drawn from qualitative analyses of semi-structured interviews with 54 young trans people between the ages of 15 and 25, living in the province of Quebec (Canada). The data collection and analysis processes followed a grounded theory approach and were guided by two concepts: recognition (Honneth) and intersectionality (Crenshaw).Results: Our research reveals three levels of parental support: strong support, negative neutrality, and non-support or rejection. These can be conditional or non-conditional. The strong support that encourages gender expression promotes the well-being of young people and strengthens relationships with their parents. On the contrary, non-support or parental rejection affects negatively the youth well-being, can expose them to dangerous situations, and/or lead them to seek other forms of support. In addition, partial support, or negative neutrality, can also affect their well-being and self-esteem negatively.Conclusion: Our article demonstrates that, in order to promote the well-being of young people, parental acceptance must be strong, and accompanied by actions that allow and encourage the expression of the gender of trans youth. It would be important to educate and support parents in the process of accepting their child.Contribution: This article addresses the lack of qualitative data on parental support and its effects on trans youth, from the perspective of the youth themselves. Our study allows us to establish with more nuance how parental support or non-support fits into life trajectories and affects the well-being of young trans people.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".