Women's Sexual Orientation and Health: Results from a Canadian Population-Based Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study sought to determine whether health status and health risk behaviors of Canadian women varied based on sexual identity. This was a cross-sectional analysis of data from the Canadian Community Health Survey: cycle 2.1, a national population-based survey designed to gather health data on a representative sample of over 135,000 Canadians including 354 lesbian respondents, 424 bisexual women respondents, and 60,937 heterosexual women respondents. Sexual orientation was associated with disparities in health status and health risk behaviors for lesbian and bisexual women in Canada. Bisexual women were more likely than lesbians or heterosexual women to report poor or fair mental and physical health, mood or anxiety disorders, lifetime STD diagnosis, and, most markedly, life-time suicidality. Lesbians and bisexual women were also more likely to report daily smoking and risky drinking than heterosexual women. In sum, sexual orientation was associated with health status in Canada. Bisexual women, in particular, reported poorer health outcomes than lesbian or heterosexual women, indicating this group may be an appropriate target for specific health promotion interventions.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".