MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4211244806 · doi:10.1080/15299716.2022.2031368

Where Does the “B” Belong?: Anti-Bisexual Experiences, Self-Stigma, and Bisexual Individuals’ Sense of Belonging

2022· article· en· W4211244806 on OpenAlexaff
Meghan K. McInnis, Stéphanie E. M. Gauvin, Karen L. Blair, Caroline F. Pukall

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bisexuality · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsTrent UniversityQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLesbianPrejudice (legal term)PsychologySexual minorityStigma (botany)Social psychologyMinority stressHomosexualityPsychology of selfSexual orientationDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bisexuality remains a stereotyped sexual identity in which bisexuals face prejudice from both gay/lesbian and heterosexual populations. Some bisexual individuals internalize society’s negative attitudes, resulting in an experience of self-stigma. Consequently, many bisexual individuals report a reduced sense of belonging. The current study explored whether self-stigma mediates the association between experiences of anti-bisexual prejudice and a sense of belonging within a bisexual sample (n = 529) while also identifying how experiences of anti-bisexual prejudice vary as a function of participant gender (man, woman, non-binary) and the source of prejudice (gay/lesbian or heterosexual). Self-stigma fully mediated the association between anti-bisexual experiences and a sense of belonging. Women and non-binary individuals reported more frequent anti-bisexual experiences than men, and all participants reported more frequent anti-bisexual experiences from heterosexual versus gay/lesbian sources. Efforts to improve a sense of belonging among bisexual individuals should focus on reducing anti-bisexual prejudice and anti-bisexual self-stigma.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations39
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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