Out Yonder: Sexual-Minority Adolescents in Rural Communities in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We compared sexual-minority adolescents living in rural communities with their peers in urban areas in British Columbia, exploring differences in emotional health, victimization experiences, sexual behaviors, and substance use. METHODS: We analyzed a population-based sample of self-identified lesbian, gay, or bisexual respondents from the British Columbia Adolescent Health Survey of 2003 (weighted n=6905). We tested rural-urban differences separately by gender with the chi2 test and logistic regressions. RESULTS: We found many similarities and several differences. Rural sexual-minority adolescent boys were more likely than were their urban peers to report suicidal behaviors and pregnancy involvement. Rural sexual-minority adolescents, especially girls, were more likely to report various types of substance use. Rural status was associated with a lower risk of dating violence and higher risk of early sexual debut for sexual-minority girls and a higher risk of dating violence and lower risk of early sexual debut for sexual-minority boys. CONCLUSIONS: Location should be a demographic consideration in monitoring the health of sexual-minority adolescents. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual adolescents in rural communities may need additional support and services as they navigate adolescence.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".