Hookup initiation and emotional outcomes differ across LGB young men and women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on hookups has grown to keep pace with new opportunities for initiations to engage in casual sex. However, most of the scholarship has been heteronormative, which is problematic because sexual minority (e.g., gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer) individuals report unique experiences in relation to their sexual experiences and health. Through minority stress, positive youth development, and grounded theory of resiliency frameworks, we studied the initiation patterns and outcomes related to hooking up among sexual minorities. Interviews were conducted with 17 participants aged 18 to 25 ( Mage = 22) in British Columbia, Canada. We found that gay males most often used social media applications to initiate hookups; bisexual young women and lesbians were most likely to use social gatherings. Despite most scholarship focusing on risks associated with hooking up, we found that outcomes of LGB young adults were more positive than negative. By way of the minority stress and resiliency frameworks, we position hookups as potential coping mechanisms in response to sexual minority stress experiences. Stakeholders should be aware of the challenges associated with hooking up for sexual minorities.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".