Sexual violence among men who have sex with men and two-spirit peoples: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual violence (SV) is a human rights and public health issue that impacts people from all communities. Men who have sex with men/Two-Spirit (MSM/2S) peoples are up to six times more likely to experience SV compared to heterosexual men. In addition, MSM/2S people are less likely to report SV. Reasons for this lack of reporting include male rape myths, fear of judgment, stigma, shame, homophobia, and/or lack of access to supportive services. The current scoping review offers a synthesis of the recent literature regarding SV among MSM/2S peoples in order to make research, practice, and policy recommendations. Findings indicated consistent SV risk factors, associated negative health outcomes, and barriers to accessing services. Risk factors included being younger, inexperience in MSM/2S communities, and having a history of sexual abuse or violence. Negative health outcomes included increased risk for HIV, depression, anxiety, heart disease, fear, eating disorders, substance use, social isolation, PTSD, and suicide. Help-seeking barriers included limited support services, lack of reporting, and male rape myths. Policy recommendations include targeted efforts to raise awareness of SV among MSM/2S peoples, and affirming the legitimacy of reporting SV through specialized healthcare services and trained professionals.
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".