Adolescent online romantic relationship initiation: Differences by sexual and gender identification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data from the national Teen Health and Technology Study of adolescents 13-18 years old (N = 5091) were used to examine online formation of romantic relationships. Results show that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) and non-LGBTQ adolescents similarly were most likely to have met their most recent boy/girlfriend in the past 12 months at school. However, they differed on many characteristics of romantic relationship initiation, including the extent to which they initiated romantic relationships online. LGBTQ and non-LGBTQ adolescents also differed on level of offline access to potential partners, offline popularity, and numerous other factors possibly related to online relationship initiation (e.g., Internet use and demographic factors). Even after adjusting for differences in these factors, LGBTQ adolescents were more likely than non-LGBTQ adolescents to find boy/girlfriends online in the past 12 months. The results support the rich-get-richer hypothesis as well as the social compensation hypothesis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".