Homonegativity Scores in Response to Static Same-Sex Imagery versus Observable Behavioral Change in Response to an Interactive Gay Male Target
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Homonegativity research tends to focus on the identities of gay men and lesbian women through inauthentic means such as vignettes and signifiers like t-shirts with pro-gay slogans. Such research also tends to neglect sexual behavior. These issues were addressed in the present mixed-methods study. Heterosexual male (n = 196) and female (n = 219) participants were asked to complete measures of old-fashioned and modern homonegativity toward gay men and lesbian women after viewing a set of stimuli depicting gay male, lesbian female, or heterosexual couples. Participants also completed an interview with the researcher where he self-identified as a gay male and observed any changes in behavior following his disclosure. Findings indicated that male participants showed higher levels of modern homonegativity than female participants, regardless of the images viewed, and had higher odds of exhibiting negative behavioral change in response to the researcher’s self-disclosure. Also, participants who viewed images of lesbian couples kissing or embracing had lower odds of showing negative behavioral change.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".