Developing Resilience: Gay Men’s Response to Systemic Discrimination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gay men experience marked health disparities compared to heterosexual men, associated with profound discrimination. Resilience as a concept has received growing attention to increase understanding about how gay men promote and protect their health in the presence of adversity. Missing in this literature are the perspectives and experiences of gay men over 40 years. This investigation, drawing on grounded theory methods, examined how gay men over 40 years of age develop resilience over the course of their lives to promote and protect their health. In-depth interviews were undertaken with 25 men ranging between 40 and 76 years of age who experienced an array of health concerns including depression, anxiety, suicidality, and HIV. Men actively resist discrimination via three interrelated protective processes that dynamically influence the development of resilience over their life course: (a) building and sustaining networks, (b) addressing mental health, and (c) advocating for respectful care encounters. Initiatives to promote and protect the health of gay men must be rooted in the recognition of the systemic role of discrimination, while supporting men's resilience in actively resisting discrimination.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".