MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3107221418 · doi:10.47611/jsrhs.v9i2.1049

The Prevalence of Stereotypes Against the LGBTQ Community and the Effect of Education on Those Stereotypes

2020· article· en· W3107221418 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Heather Wickersham, Deborah Vajner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Student Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyBaseline (sea)Presentation (obstetrics)Social psychologyClass (philosophy)Sign (mathematics)Political scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stereotyping against the LGBTQ community is a major problem in modern society. Previous research has shown that stereotyping can be reduced through targeted education about the stereotyped group. This study aims to further research the effect of education on stereotypes as well as the prevalence of stereotypes against the LGBTQ community in a public high school in North Carolina. Building on existing work from Canada, this study questions the use of education in changing stereotypes and what is the baseline prevalence of those stereotypes. Based on previous peer-reviewed, published literature, this study will survey both students and teachers to establish a baseline of stereotyping occurring at this location. The researcher will teach a class about stereotypes and the LGBTQ community and measure the level of stereotypes before and after the presentation. Analysis showed that this high school had low levels of discrimination, which is a major sign of low levels of stereotyping. It also showed that education had a low-grade negative impact against stereotyping, effectively increasing stereotyping.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.158

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.167
GPT teacher head0.526
Teacher spread0.359 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Student ResearchSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207