Coping with stress among gays and lesbians: Implications for human development over the lifespan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gays and lesbians are at risk of being exposed to high levels of stress because of their marginalized social identities and social locations in dominant cultures. Given the prevalence and significance of stress in the lives of gays and lesbians regardless of their age, stress-coping is one of the key axes of their development over the lifespan. The purpose of the present study was to examine the ways in which gays and lesbians cope with stress in their lives, including the potential contribution of leisure to stress-coping. A series of focus groups were conducted with gays and lesbians (n = 30) in a western Canadian city to explore their lived experiences and meanings of coping. The findings suggest that the use of effective coping methods is a survival technique in their lives. The key themes identified are concerned with a wide range of coping techniques—personal, social, behavioral, psychological, attitudinal, spiritual, and cultural. These findings emphasize the importance of using the strengths and resilience of gays and lesbians in coping with stress. Particularly, our data suggested that a leisure space is considered an oasis for gays and lesbians to re-charge themselves physically, emotionally, and psychologically, which facilitates a sense of empowerment to proactively cope with stress in a world where homophobia and heterosexism still exist.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".