Our pride, our joy: An intersectional constructivist grounded theory analysis of resources that promote resilience in SGM communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Sexual and gender minority (SGM) communities, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, and Two-Spirit people, have historically been researched from a deficits-based approach that fails to highlight the ways communities survive and thrive in the face of adversity. This study endeavored to create a model of resources that promote SGM resilience using a sample that amplified traditionally underrepresented perspectives, including individuals from racial and/or ethnic minority groups, trans and/or gender diverse individuals, individuals on the asexual spectrum, and older adults. METHODS: Participant responses to three open-ended questions from The PRIDE Study's (an online national longitudinal cohort study of SGM people) 2018 Annual Questionnaire were analyzed using constructivist grounded theory. These questions examined what brings people joy and what they appreciate most about their SGM identity. Participants (n = 315) were randomly selected from a larger sample of people who had responded to demographic questions and at least one open-ended question (N = 4,030) in a manner to ensure diverse representation across race/ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, and region of residence. RESULTS: The proposed model includes social resources (Connecting with Others, Cultivating Family, Helping Others, Participating in Culture and Spirituality), affective generative resources (Engaging in Enriching Pursuits, Accessing Economic Resources), and introspective resources (Exploring One's Authentic Self, Persevering through Hardship) that are theorized to contribute to SGM resilience across the life course. CONCLUSIONS: SGM communities may tap into various resources to promote resilience. As public health practitioners, we can help to foster this resilience by resourcing and supporting initiatives that foster social connection, create spaces for community members to engage with various types of enrichment, facilitate access to economic resources, and provide support and inclusion for all SGM community members.
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 | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".