Conceptions and the experience of friendship in <scp>underrepresented</scp> groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The authors reviewed the literature on the meaning and experience of friendship for members of underrepresented groups (sexual orientation and gender diversity, race and ethnicity). It is argued that many of the variables that contribute to friendship formation among mainstream groups (found in past research) also apply to underrepresented groups (e.g., environments that bring people into contact with one another, homophily). There also are commonalities in the friendship maintenance processes of mainstream and underrepresented groups (e.g., self‐disclosure, provision of support). However, the authors' main point is that there are additional challenges and barriers that are encountered by members of sexual and gender diverse groups and racial and ethnic minorities, and the intersections of those identities, particularly when forming and maintaining friendships with people of majority status. The authors elucidate these challenges and discuss interventions for increasing the diversity of friends in people's networks. In addition, the authors identify significant gaps in the literature on the friendship worlds of diverse groups and offer directions for future research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".