MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043259067 · doi:10.7870/cjcmh-2003-0011

Internalized Homophobia: A Factor in Depression, Anxiety, and Suicide in the Gay and Lesbian Population

2003· article· en· W2043259067 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Karine J. Igartua, Kathryn Gill, Richard Montoro

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Community Mental Health · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsPsychologyHomosexualitySuicidal ideationLesbianClinical psychologyAnxietyDepression (economics)PopulationFeelingBeck Depression InventorySuicide attemptPsychiatrySuicide preventionPoison controlMedicineSocial psychologyMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two-hundred and twenty participants recruited through multiple sampling strategies completed a self-report questionnaire examining: (a) whether internalized homophobia predicts depressive and anxious symptoms, suicide, and substance abuse; and (b) the periods of gay-identity development which were particularly risky for suicide. Results indicate that internalized homophobia, particularly negative feelings towards one's own homosexuality (as measured by the Self subscale of the Nungesser Homosexual Attitudes Inventory), accounts for 18% of the variance in depressive scores and 13% of anxiety scores (using the Beck inventories). Internalized homophobia did not predict suicide independently from depression. The period of greatest risk for both suicidal ideation and suicide attempts was the period of disclosure of one's homosexuality to one's immediate family.

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)0.002
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.328 · 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

Citations212
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Community Mental HealthSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207