MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169657805 · doi:10.1177/1078390313510739

The Association Between Bullying and Physical Health Among Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Individuals

2013· article· en· W2169657805 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher Zou, Judith P. Andersen, John R. Blosnich

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsLesbianAssociation (psychology)PsychologyHomosexualityClinical psychologyHeterosexismPsychotherapistPsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Research suggests that lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) populations experience higher prevalence of school bullying than heterosexuals. OBJECTIVES: We examined if (a) verbal versus physical bullying were differentially associated with physical health among sexual minorities and (b) if sexual identity (i.e., homosexual [i.e., lesbian/gay] vs. bisexual) moderated the association of bullying on physical health. DESIGN: LGB adults aged 18 to 66 years (n = 463) were recruited online. Participants reported high school experiences of verbal and physical bullying and physician-diagnosed health conditions. RESULTS: Physical and verbal bullying were related to physical health conditions (ps < .01). Physical bullying had a significant negative impact on physical health for bisexual persons (p < .001) but not for gay/lesbian persons. CONCLUSIONS: Experiencing bullying in high school was associated with physical health problems in adulthood. Bullying had a different relationship with health problems for bisexually identified individuals compared to lesbian/gay individuals. Future research should strive to disentangle potential differences in the relationship between bullying and health within sexual minority groups.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.832

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.349 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations20
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Psychiatric Nurses AssociationSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207