MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2225040024 · doi:10.7870/cjcmh-2011-0019

Comparing Psychological, Social, and Sexuality-Related Problems Reported by Bisexual and Gay Men: A Canadian Internet-Based Study

2011· article· en· W2225040024 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Kim Engler, Jean Dumas, Martin Blais, Joseph J. Lévy, Christine Thoër, Bill Ryan, Alain Léobon, Barry D. Adam, Kristopher Wells, Blye Frank

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Community Mental Health · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of AlbertaMcGill UniversityUniversity of WindsorUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSexual orientationOddsPsychologyHuman sexualityMental healthHomosexualitySexual identityClinical psychologySocial psychologyGender studiesMedicinePsychiatrySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Greater clarification is needed about the differences between gay and bisexual men's health issues. With data from a pan-Canadian online survey, bisexual (n = 564) and gay men (n = 1,109) were compared on 32 different psychological, social, and sexual self-perceived problems that they might have encountered over the past 12 months. Clear patterns emerged. Relative to gay men, bisexual men had significantly higher adjusted odds of different sexual orientation or identity problems and certain health behaviour problems but significantly lower odds of several mental health and HIV/STI-related problems.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.132

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0070.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.285
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.154 · 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 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

Citations8
Published2011
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Community Mental HealthSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207