Perceived Determinants of Mental Health for Bisexual People: A Qualitative Examination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We examined the determinants of mental health, as perceived by bisexual people, in order to begin understanding the disparities in the rates of mental health problems reported by bisexual people versus those reported by heterosexual people, and, in many studies, gay men and lesbians. METHODS: Our community-based participatory action research project comprised focus groups and semistructured interviews with 55 bisexual people across the province of Ontario, Canada. RESULTS: Perceived determinants of emotional well-being identified by participants could be classified as macrolevel (social structure), mesolevel (interpersonal), or microlevel (individual). In the context of this framework, monosexism and biphobia were perceived to exert a broad-reaching impact on participants' mental health. CONCLUSIONS: Like other marginalized populations, bisexual people perceive experiences of discrimination as important determinants of mental health problems. Additional research is required to examine the relationships between these perceived determinants of emotional well-being and specific mental health outcomes and to guide interventions, advocacy, and support for bisexual people.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".