Bi+ identity visibility and well-being in the context of romantic relationships.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bi+ people-those who are attracted to multiple gender groups and who use labels such as bisexual, pansexual, queer, or fluid-encounter challenges related to making their identities visible and experience reduced well-being relative to their gay/lesbian and heterosexual peers. In a sample of 450 bi+ participants, we pursue two primary goals. First, we investigate whether the subjective feeling that one's bi+ identity is invisible is associated with lower well-being among bi+ individuals. Second, we identify circumstances under which bi+ people experience lower vs. higher subjective identity invisibility, focusing on the influential role of romantic relationships. We find that subjective visibility is positively associated with well-being, particularly for individuals whose bi+ identities are central to them. Relationship factors supporting a sense of perceived visibility included being in a same-gender relationship and having a gay, lesbian, or bi+ partner. This study contributes to efforts to identify conditions that promote bi+ people's well-being and highlights the importance of attending to the relationship dynamics of bi+ people, an understudied population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".