MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008555440 · doi:10.1037/h0098854

Peer harassment and risky behavior among sexual minority girls and boys.

2014· article· en· W2008555440 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexa Martin‐Storey, Robert Crosnoe

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Orthopsychiatry · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentFonds de Recherche du Québec-Société et CultureWilliam T. Grant Foundation
KeywordsHarassmentModerationPsychologySexual minorityDevelopmental psychologyExploratory researchPeer groupContext (archaeology)Association (psychology)Peer victimizationSocial psychologyClinical psychologyHuman factors and ergonomicsPoison controlMedicineSexual orientation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The role of peer harassment in the association between sexual minority status and adolescent risky behavior was examined for 15-year-olds in the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (n = 957). The findings, although exploratory, suggest the importance of gender. For girls, peer harassment was best viewed as a moderator of the link between sexual minority status and increased risky behavior. It intensified an existing association, reflecting the gendered nature of the impact of sexual minority status on the adolescent social context. For boys, peer harassment was primarily a mediator, such that sexual minority status was associated with more risky behavior via elevated harassment, although sexual minority status itself was associated with lower risky behavior overall.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.314 · 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

Citations9
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of OrthopsychiatrySame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207