MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2525619124 · doi:10.1080/00918369.2016.1242333

Heterosexism, Depression, and Campus Engagement Among LGBTQ College Students: Intersectional Differences and Opportunities for Healing

2016· article· en· W2525619124 on OpenAlexaff
Alex Kulick, Laura J. Wernick, Michael R. Woodford, Kristen A. Renn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Homosexuality · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
FundersMichigan State UniversityUniversity of Michigan
KeywordsHeterosexismSexual orientationPsychologyMental healthIntersectionalitySexual minorityLesbianInterpersonal communicationMultilevel modelRacismHomosexualitySocial psychologyClinical psychologyGender studiesSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

LGBTQ people experience health disparities related to multilevel processes of sexual and gender marginalization, and intersections with racism can compound these challenges for LGBTQ people of color. Although community engagement may be protective for mental health broadly and for LGBTQ communities in buffering against heterosexism, little research has been conducted on the racialized dynamics of these processes among LGBTQ communities. This study analyzes cross-sectional survey data collected among a diverse sample of LGBTQ college students (n = 460), which was split by racial status. Linear regression models were used to test main effects of interpersonal heterosexism and engagement with campus organizations on depression, as well as moderating effects of campus engagement. For White LGBTQ students, engaging in student leadership appears to weaken the heterosexism-depression link-specifically, the experience of interpersonal microaggressions. For LGBTQ students of color, engaging in LGBTQ-specific spaces can strengthen the association between sexual orientation victimization and depression.

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)0.003
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations154
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HomosexualitySame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207