MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122067701 · doi:10.1177/0002764202250667

Sexual Minority Youth and Suicide Risk

2003· article· en· W2122067701 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stephen T. Russell

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Behavioral Scientist · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSexual minorityNormativeIntervention (counseling)PsychologyQuarter (Canadian coin)Suicide preventionPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsClinical psychologyPsychiatrySexual orientationMedicineEnvironmental healthSocial psychologyPolitical scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Numerous studies spanning the past quarter century have used varied designs and methods in multiple settings and have consistently demonstrated that sexual minority youth are among those most likely to report suicidality (suicidal thoughts, plans, and attempts). This article reviews the methodological challenges that have defined and limited research in this area, including issues of sampling, the measurement of sexual minority status, and the measurement of suicide risk. Attention is then given to risk and protective factors for suicide among sexual minority youth. Normative risk and protective factors, those common to all youth, and risk and protective factors unique to sexual minority youth are reviewed. In closing, attention is given to the state of suicide prevention and intervention efforts that target sexual minority youth, along with recommendations for further research.

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)0.005
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.341 · 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

Citations189
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Behavioral ScientistSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207