MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2614667785 · doi:10.1080/00918369.2017.1320169

Intersectionality in the Lives of LGBTQ Youth: Identifying as LGBTQ and Finding Community in Small Cities and Rural Towns

2017· article· en· W2614667785 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Wendy Hulko, Jessica Hovanes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Homosexuality · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsHIV Legal NetworkThompson Rivers University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research CouncilMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsIntersectionalityLesbianQueerGender studiesSociologyTransgenderHomosexualityHeteronormativity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents an analysis of the views of younger bisexual and lesbian women and transgender youth living in a western Canadian small city on their sexual and gender identities. Data were collected through focus groups and interviews and analyzed thematically through an intersectional lens. The purposive sample was composed of 13 youth who identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ) and whose average age was 19.8 years. The analytical themes of (1) living in a small town, (2) identifying and being identified, and (3) talking intersectionality indicate that the sexual identities and gender identities and expressions of LGBTQ youth change across time and context and are impacted by often overlooked factors including faith, Indigenous ancestry, disability, and class. Further, the size and character of the community significantly impacts LGBTQ youth identity development and expression. This research demonstrates the uniqueness of individual youth's experiences-opposing notions of milestone events as singularly important in queer youth identity development.

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)0.002
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.446
Threshold uncertainty score0.887

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0220.012
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.235
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations79
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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