The positive aspects of a bisexual self-identification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bisexual clients (Page, 2007 Page, E. 2007. “Bisexual women's and men's experiences of psychotherapy”. In Becoming visible: Counseling bisexuals across the lifespan, Edited by: Firestein, B.A. 52–71. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. [Google Scholar]) and lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB)-affirmative therapists (Godfrey, Haddock, Fisher, & Lund, 2006 Godfrey, K., Haddock, S.A., Fisher, A. and Lund, L. 2006. Essential components of curricula for preparing therapists to work effectively with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients: A Delphi study. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 32: 491–504. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) agree that facilitating a positive identity is one of the most important therapeutic tasks. However, the task of achieving a positive identity may be particularly challenging for bisexual-identified individuals (Rust, 2002 Rust, P.C.R. 2002. Bisexuality: The state of the union. Annual Review of Sex Research, 13: 180–240. [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar]). To assist in this effort, the authors conducted an online survey that asked bisexual-identified individuals to respond to an open-ended question about the positive aspects of bisexual identity. Findings from an international sample of 157 adult participants (age 18–69; 67% female; 25% Canadian; 19% British; 51% American; 5% other) revealed 11 positive identity aspects: freedom from social labels, honesty and authenticity, having a unique perspective, increased levels of insight and awareness, freedom to love without regard for sex/gender, freedom to explore relationships, freedom of sexual expression, acceptance of diversity, belonging to a community, understanding privilege and oppression and becoming an advocate/activist. Each of these positive aspects is illustrated with quotes from participants. The authors offer suggestions for incorporating these findings in bisexual-affirmative counselling and therapy.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".