Being humorous and seeking diversion: Promoting healthy coping skills among LGBTQ+ youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
LGBTQ+ youth encounter pervasive stigma-related stress that requires effective coping skills. This study explored the coping patterns of LGBTQ+ youth participants (N = 30) in a cognitive-behavioral therapy-based coping skills training. Participants, 15–18 years old with a range of gender, sexual, racial and ethnic identities, completed a coping skills inventory (A-COPE) with 12 subscales at two time points. Based on the stigma-coping framework, coping skills were broadly classified as disengagement or engagement strategies. LGBTQ+ youth were most likely to utilize avoiding problems as a strategy to cope with stress, followed closely by being humorous, relaxing, and ventilating feelings. Notably, seeking professional and spiritual support were the least adopted coping strategies. Post-intervention, participants reported significant increases in the areas of primary control (solving family problems) and secondary control (seeking spiritual support, seeking diversion, engaging in demanding activities, and being humorous). The findings demonstrate the versatility of LGBTQ+ youth's coping strategies and show the potential of the AFFIRM intervention to promote engagement coping patterns among this population.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".