MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053673538 · doi:10.1080/00918369.2010.517080

Factors Influencing the Career and Academic Choices of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender People

2010· article· en· W2053673538 on OpenAlexaff
Margaret S. Schneider, Anne Dimito

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Homosexuality · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Community Safety and Correctional ServicesInstitute for Christian StudiesUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLesbianSexual orientationTransgenderPsychologyHomosexualitySexual minoritySocial psychologyMinority stressMale HomosexualityGender studiesSociologyMedicineHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Men who have sex with men

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is an empirical study of academic and career choices for 119 lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) students using a questionnaire. Respondents who reported that their sexual orientation influenced their choices a great deal indicated that the influences were both positive and negative. This group was most likely to have experienced anti-LGBT discrimination in the past. In comparing lesbian, bisexual people, and gay males, gay males and respondents from visible minorities were the most likely to feel a negative impact, while bisexual respondents were the least likely. There were too few transgender respondents to include in these statistical comparisons; however, frequencies suggest that transgender people may be the most vulnerable of all. Results suggest that counselors need to take sexual orientation issues, particularly past experiences of discrimination, when working with LGBT clients.

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)0.003
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.208
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations82
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HomosexualitySame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207