MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905456709 · doi:10.5195/jyd.2018.585

Feasibility and Fit of a Mental Health Promotion Program for LGBTQ+ Youth

2018· article· en· W2905456709 on OpenAlexaff
Alicia Lapointe, Caely Dunlop, Claire V. Crooks

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Youth Development · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPromotion (chess)Session (web analytics)Mental healthPsychologyFocus groupPositive Youth DevelopmentTracking (education)Medical educationHuman sexualityTransgenderApplied psychologyComputer scienceMedicineDevelopmental psychologyWorld Wide WebPedagogySociologyPsychotherapistPolitical scienceGender studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study evaluated the feasibility and fit of a mental health promotion and violence prevention program adapted for LGBTQ+ youth (ages 14-18). The pilot program included 16 30-minute sessions and was implemented in 8 gender and sexuality alliances (GSAs) and one community youth group setting. Extensive feedback was collected from 11 facilitators via session tracking sheets, ongoing email communication, an implementation survey, and a focus group; and from 7 youth who participated in a variety of feedback activities during a 2-day post-program workshop. Results indicated a strong interest in formalized programming, challenges related to its delivery in GSAs, and significant issues with its content. Facilitators and youth advocated for the program to be more affirmative, include youth-centered notions of identities and expressions, be trauma-informed, include a wider range of relationships, and adopt a youth-led approach.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.453
Threshold uncertainty score0.468

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.168
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations13
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Youth DevelopmentSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207