Extraordinary Acts to “Show Up”: Conceptualizing Resilience of LGBTQ Youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual and gender diversity is an overlooked subject in resilience research. This study seeks to advance the conceptualization of resilience among lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and queer (LGBTQ) youth. Informed by social ecological theory of resilience, grounded theory analysis of interviews with service providers ( n = 16) and LGBTQ youth ( n = 19) yielded the following categories: (a) facing adversities across contexts, and (b) “doing well” while still in pain. LGBTQ youth face both general and LGBTQ-specific adversities. LGBTQ youth, even in a so-called “post-gay” era, remain challenged to navigate marginalization to maintain their well-being. Participants endorsed a context-dependent understanding of “doing well,” rather than using normative criteria of health (e.g., absence of psychopathologies). Although resilience is known as “ordinary magic,” this article alternatively proposes that resilience is LGBTQ youths’ extraordinary acts to “show up” every day to battle through adversities.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".