Who Are We Missing? The Impact of Requiring Parental or Guardian Consent on Research With Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, Two-Spirit, Queer/Questioning Youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose was to examine whether a requirement for parental or guardian consent systematically limits which lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, two-spirit, queer/questioning (LGBT2Q+) youth participate in research. METHODS: A total of 60 LGBT2Q+ youth (aged 14-18 years) completed measures assessing gender and sexual minority identity, depression and anxiety, help-seeking intentions, and social support. RESULTS: A substantial proportion (37.6%) of youth reported that they would not have participated in the research if parental or guardian consent was required. Those who would not have participated had more negative attitudes about their sexual and gender identity, less family support, lower levels of help-seeking intentions, and higher levels of negative affect. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that requiring parental or guardian consent may exclude the most at-risk youth. Policy and practice decisions regarding the health and mental health outcomes of LGBT2Q+ youth might be based on incomplete and unrepresentative data.
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 | 0.577 | 0.741 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".