MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Predicting the Timing of Coming Out in Gay and Bisexual Men From World Beliefs, Physical Attractiveness, and Childhood Gender Identity/Role<sup>1</sup>

2009· article· en· W2078240433 on OpenAlexaff
Anthony F. Bogaert, Carolyn L. Hafer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Social Psychology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPhysical attractivenessAttractivenessFemininityJust-world hypothesisIdentity (music)Developmental psychologySexual identityDemographicsSocial psychologyDemographyGender studiesHuman sexualitySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a questionnaire study, we examined the age of “coming out” (i.e., acknowledging one's sexual identity) in gay and bisexual men as predicted by belief in a just world (BJW), personal efficacy (PE), physical attractiveness, childhood gender identity/role, and demographics. As hypothesized, men with a higher BJW, greater physical attractiveness, greater degree of same‐sex behavior, and younger age reported an earlier age of coming out. An interaction between BJW and childhood gender identity/role showed, as expected, that the relation with BJW only occurred among men with greater childhood femininity. Unexpectedly, PE was unrelated to age of coming out. Results add to previous studies on the coming‐out process and to work suggesting a buffering effect of BJW in other contexts.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.346 · 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

Citations18
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Social PsychologySame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207