Experiences of homophobia among gay and bisexual men: results from a cross-sectional study in seven countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experiences of homophobic discrimination are associated with an increased prevalence of psychological disorders and increased odds of reporting suicidal ideation among gay and bisexual men. We examine two domains of homophobia--external homophobic discrimination and internalised homophobia--and their associations with sexual orientation, demographic characteristics, relationships and social support among a sample of gay and bisexual men from seven countries. Sexually active gay and bisexual men aged over 18 and residing in Australia, Brazil, Canada, South Africa, Thailand, the UK and the USA were recruited through banner advertisements on Facebook. Two outcomes were examined: reporting experiences of homophobic discrimination and reporting feelings of internalised homophobia. No covariates were consistently significantly associated with experiencing external homophobic discrimination across countries. Across all countries, bisexually identifying respondents reported significantly greater feelings of internalised homophobia. Respondents in Brazil and the UK reporting a main partner, and respondents in Australia, Brazil, Canada, South Africa, Thailand and the USA reporting a larger gay/bisexual social network, reported significantly fewer feelings of internalised homophobia. Results suggest an ameliorative effect of social networks on experiencing homophobia. Additional research should focus on the mechanisms through which social networks reduce feelings of internalised homophobia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".