MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124688744 · doi:10.1080/00049530600940006

Double jeopardy: lesbians and the legacy of multiple stigmatised identities

2004· article· en· W2124688744 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bruce Findlay, Mary Piggott

Bibliographic record

VenueSwinburne Research Bank (Swinburne University of Technology) · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyDouble jeopardySocial psychologyGender studiesSociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An international sample of 803 lesbians from 20 countries responded to an internet based questionnaire containing a measure of internalised homophobia expanded from the Lesbian Internalised Homophobia Scale of Szymanski and Chung (2001); a series of items that we hoped measured internalised misogyny; measures of homosexual identity, selfesteem, depression, and psychosexual adjustment. Exploratory factor analysis supported four of the five factors of internalised homophobia. The scale was reliable and valid in individual sub-samples from Australia, the United States, Canada, England, and Finland. Correlational data suggested that internalised homophobia and internalised misogyny were indeed distinct, though related constructs, and regression analyses suggested that, for this sample, internalised homophobia was a much better predictor of psychological and psychosexual adjustment than was internalised misogyny. The talk will include discussion of methodological concerns, particularly regarding collecting data via the internet, and will invite advice regarding further validation of the measures.

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)0.002
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSwinburne Research Bank (Swinburne University of Technology)Same topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207