MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1480086050 · doi:10.1300/j041v19n01_01

Can Talking About Oppression Reduce Depression?

2007· article· en· W1480086050 on OpenAlexaff
Lori E. Ross, Farzana Doctor, Anne Dimito, Dale Kuehl, Michael S. Armstrong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOppressionDepression (economics)LesbianPsychological interventionIntervention (counseling)PsychologyClinical psychologyTransgenderPsychotherapistPsychiatryPsychoanalysisPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research has demonstrated that rates of depression are elevated among lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual (LGBT) people as a result of social stigmatization. However, few studies have investigated interventions which address the proposed causes of depression for LGBT people (i.e., internalized and external oppression). This study tested a cognitive behavioural therapy-based group intervention for LGBT people living with depression, which was delivered based on anti-oppression principles and included sessions on coming out and internalized homophobia. Participants demonstrated statistically significant reductions in symptoms of depression, and statistically significant increases in self-esteem, following the intervention. Implications for service delivery to LGBT people are discussed.

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)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.378 · 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

Citations93
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Gay & Lesbian Social ServicesSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207