A grounded theory of bisexual individuals’ experiences of help seeking.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bisexual people constitute the largest sexual minority group in North America and experience significant mental health disparities in relation to heterosexuals, gays, and lesbians. In this article, we will examine the process and experience of help seeking among bisexuals. This was a community-based study that collected qualitative interview data from 41 diverse bisexual people from across Ontario, Canada. We analyzed the interview data using grounded theory and constructed an understanding of bisexuals' experiences of help seeking. We have conceptualized an overarching model that illustrates 4 interrelated stages: (a) the consideration of services, (b) the process of finding services, (c) barriers and facilitators to accessing services, and (d) experience of service utilization. This model is nonlinear, in that participants do not necessarily move through stages in sequence. Although many stages are experienced at the individual level, they are simultaneously informed by multiple factors at interpersonal and system levels. Our findings suggest a need for interventions at the policy, service and provider levels to improve accessibility of culturally competent services for this population. Understanding the mental health experiences of bisexual people will allow mental health professionals to build competencies working with this population and thereby contribute to a reduction in mental health disparities. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.018 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".