MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2899782114 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igy023.2476

THE MENTAL HEALTH OF AGING SEXUAL MINORITIES IN CANADA: FINDINGS FROM THE CANADIAN LONGITUDINAL STUDY ON AGING (CLSA)

2018· article· en· W2899782114 on OpenAlexaffabout
Arne Stinchcombe, Kimberley Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphSaint Paul University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthLesbianLongitudinal studyPsychologyDepression (economics)OddsGerontologyHealthy agingDepressive symptomsPopulationSuccessful agingDemographyClinical psychologyMedicinePsychiatryCognitionLogistic regressionInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA) is a national population health study that will follow approximately 50,000 adults aged 45–85 over the next 20 years. At baseline, 1,057 participants (i.e., 2%) within the CLSA self-identified as lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB). The purpose of this presentation is to examine differences in mental health between LGB and heterosexual participants in the CLSA. Depressive symptoms were evaluated through the short form of the Centre for Epidemiologic Studies – Depression (CES-D10) scale. Results indicated that LGB participants had greater odds of being categorized as depressed. In addition, gay and bisexual males were found to have lower levels of perceived social support relative to heterosexual males. Results highlight the importance of mental health services for aging sexual minorities in order to support a diverse aging population. Following the mental health trajectories of minority participants in the CLSA as they reach older ages will be essential to better understanding the relationship between the social determinants of health and aging in Canada.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes
Observationallow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.237

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in Aging→Same topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy→French-language works237,207→