Suicide Prevention From the Perspectives of Gay, Bisexual, and Two-Spirit Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although gay, bisexual, and two-spirit men (GBTSM) experience high rates of suicidality, there have been few empirical studies of prevention initiatives and policies that could address or reverse this major social problem. This article reports on a photovoice study of 29 GBTSM who had a history of suicidality or lost a fellow GBTSM to suicide. We focused our analysis on participants' perspectives on suicide prevention. Participants described four key considerations for GBTSM suicide prevention: (a) recognizing and addressing enduring homophobia, biphobia, and mental illness stigma; (b) provision of low-barrier, long-term, and GBTSM-affirming counseling; (c) de-isolation through peer support and community connection; and (d) fostering creativity and cultural resilience. By engaging GBTSM affected by suicide through photographs that depict their experiences and points of view, in this study, we offer concrete recommendations to reduce suicidality among GBTSM.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".