MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1541447073 · doi:10.25011/cim.v30i4.2795

35. Models that change: The study of gay identity development

2007· article· en· W1541447073 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
K. Heng

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and investigative medicine · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomosexualityPrideShameIdentity (music)PsychologyStigma (botany)LesbianIdentity formationSocial psychologyGender studiesSociologyPsychoanalysisPolitical scienceSelf-conceptLawPsychiatryAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder by the American Psychiatric Association in 1974, a large number of models of gay identity development have been proposed in the literature. This is unique because for the first time, more attention was paid to the process of developing a gay identity rather than theorizing about the etiologies of homosexuality. This paper reviews the changes in thought found in the literature describing how one comes to develop a gay identity. For the marginalized, identity development is generally described against a backdrop of stigma. Fortunately, our current society is very different from the hostile world that surrounded the APA in 1974: homosexuality is more tolerated and accepted, laws are less discriminatory, and gay role models are more abundant and accessible. As society has evolved, so too have its descriptive models. Shame and reluctance are found in Plumer’s (1975) and Lee’s (1977) models. Pride and activism appear in Hencken and O’Dowd’s (1977) and Cass’ (1979) models. Troiden (1989) mentions the fear of AIDS in his writings. Alderson’s (1998) model reflects a climate where religion, friends, and society can be catalysts in developing a positive identity. Taken together, these models are like time capsules containing clues as to the social conditions of the time. As the rate of social evolution accelerates, it is doubtful that any model regarding marginalized individuals will ever become definitive. For the case of homosexuality, if and when its stigma is removed, then the defining feature of gay identity development is also removed. It is possible that in its place will be a general model of sexual identity development, where homosexual and heterosexual paths diverge innocently and quietly in a society that does not value one over the other. Alderson K. The ecological model of gay male identity. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 2003; 12(2):75-85. Cass V. Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of Homosexuality 1979; 4(3):219-35. Troiden R. The formation of homosexual identities. Journal of Homosexuality 1989; 17(1/2):43-73.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.053
Scholarly communication0.0120.019
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0060.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.650
GPT teacher head0.524
Teacher spread0.126 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical and investigative medicine→Same topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy→French-language works237,207→