MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W139754037

Pediatric residents' knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes towards homosexually oriented youth.

2002· article· en· W139754037 on OpenAlexaffabout
Suji M Lena, Tannis Wiebe, Sara Ingram, Mona Jabbour

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLesbianPsychosocialSexual orientationPerceptionMedicineHomosexualityFamily medicinePsychologyPsychiatrySocial psychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Pediatric residents must have clinical exposure and specific training to meet the health-care needs of gay, lesbian, and bisexual adolescents. Homosexually oriented youths have medical and psychosocial needs that these future pediatricians must fulfil. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the knowledge and attitudes of pediatric residents in the management of gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth and related health-care issues. METHOD: Twenty-nine pediatric residents at the University of Ottawa were sent a survey questionnaire. RESULTS: Many respondents indicated that they experience difficulties in discussing issues of sexual orientation, and feel inadequately prepared to address the health-care needs of homosexual youth. Furthermore, respondents showed a lack of awareness regarding resources available to gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth in the community. CONCLUSION: While knowledge is limited, residents' attitudes towards homosexual youth are generally positive. Also, most respondents indicate an interest in continuing education, and in gaining more information to better serve their homosexually oriented adolescent patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations8
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy→French-language works237,207→