Friendship Patterns among Lesbian and Gay Youth: An Exploratory Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research and commentary on lesbian and gay youth indicates that this population is in particular need of social support especially from peers both lesbian and gay as well as heterosexual. Yet very little is known about the friendship patters of lesbian and gay youth. This study explores these friendship patterns in the expectation that such research will suggest new ways of assisting lesbian and gay youth in finding social support. Data were collected from 22 lesbian and gay youth and 29 heterosexual youth between the ages of 16 and 21 years. Results indicated that lesbian and gay youth lived further away from their friends and had not known their friends as long as their heterosexual counterparts. Gay males and heterosexual females talked more often on the phone with friends than did lesbians or heterosexual males. Gay males were more likely than anyone else to have friends of the opposite sex and least likely to have friends of the same sexual orientation. Lesbians were the most likely to have sexual contact with people they considered to be friends. The implications of these finding are explored. (authors)
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".