MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3141889150 · doi:10.1177/1038416220978977

LGBTQ+ youth: Careers threats and interventions

2021· article· en· W3141889150 on OpenAlexafffund
Charles P. Chen, Zimo Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Journal of Career Development · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychological interventionCompromiseCareer developmentDiversity (politics)PsychologyIdentity (music)Openness to experienceMental healthPopulationTransgenderPublic relationsSocial psychologySociologyGender studiesPolitical scienceSocial sciencePsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In an era of rapid development, the world is showing greater openness towards diversity and inclusiveness. There is also an increasing amount of career-related research that has shed light on the LGBTQ+ population. Still, the literature reports many career issues that concern young LGBTQ+ individuals. The current article aimed to highlight the contributing issues that might impact young LGBTQ+ groups’ career development, mental health, and well-being – in particular, the issues of workplace hostility, the costs of self-identity disclosure, self-identity confusion, and inadequate career counselling and guidance services. These issues are discussed through the lens of three major career theories: Super’s life-span, life-space theory, Gottfredson’s circumscription and compromise theory, and Krumboltz’s social learning theory. The aim was to equip career counsellors with a better understanding of the challenges facing LGBTQ+ youth and to suggest potentially useful interventions.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.192
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Journal of Career DevelopmentSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207