SCHOOL-BASED STRATEGIES TO REDUCE SUICIDAL IDEATION, SUICIDE ATTEMPTS, AND DISCRIMINATION AMONG SEXUAL MINORITY AND HETEROSEXUAL ADOLESCENTS IN WESTERN CANADA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: This study explored the relationships between the existence of and length of time since implementation of school-based Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs) and explicit anti-homophobic bullying policies in secondary schools across British Columbia, Canada, with experiences of anti-gay discrimination, suicidal ideation and attempts among lesbian, gay, bisexual (LGB), mostly heterosexual, and exclusively heterosexual students. Analyses of the province-wide random cluster-stratified 2008 B.C. Adolescent Health Survey (n = 21,708) compared students in schools with GSAs or policies implemented at least 3 years, and less than 3 years, with those in schools without GSAs or anti-homophobia policies, using multinomial logistic regression, separately by gender. LGB students had lower odds of past year discrimination, suicidal thoughts and attempts, mostly when policies and GSAs had been in place for 3+ years; policies had a less consistent effect than GSAs. Heterosexual boys, but not girls, also had lower odds of suicidal ideation and attempts in schools with longer-established anti-homophobic bullying policies and GSAs. Given consistently higher documented risk for suicidal ideation and attempts among LGB and mostly heterosexual adolescents, prevention efforts should be a priority, and school-level interventions, such as GSAs, may be an effective approach
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".