MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914728029 · doi:10.1080/19361653.2019.1571981

Hearing “that’s so gay” and “no homo” on academic outcomes for LGBQ + college students

2019· article· en· W2914728029 on OpenAlexafffund
Nicole Mathies, Todd Coleman, Raymond M. McKie, Michael R. Woodford, Erin Leigh Courtice, Robb Travers, Kristen A. Renn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of LGBT Youth · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchWilfrid Laurier University
KeywordsLesbianHeterosexismPsychologySexual minorityHomosexualityQueerSexual orientationTransgenderSexual identityClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyHuman sexualitySocial psychologyGender studiesSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Heterosexist phrases on college campuses can contribute to negative consequences among lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, and other sexual minority students (LGBQ+), however, their relationship to academic outcomes remains under-researched. This analysis investigates hearing the microaggressions “that’s so gay” and “no homo” on academic engagement outcomes among a national sample of cisgender sexual minority college students (n = 574). The multivariable regression analysis suggest that increased exposure to hearing “that’s so gay” and “no homo” were both significantly associated with worse academic outcomes in terms of developmental challenge (p = .002 and p < .001, respectively). Greater instances of hearing “no homo” was also associated with lower college GPA scores (p = .015). Strategies for educational institutions, faculty, and students to promote more accepting campus climates and alleviate the harmful effects of hearing these phrases are discussed.

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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.632

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.326 · 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

Citations33
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of LGBT YouthSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207