Setting the Game Agenda: Reviewing the Emerging Literature on Video Gaming and Psychological Well-Being of Sexual and Gender Diverse Youth
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Video gaming is a popular youth pastime that has prompted scholarship into its relationship with psychological well-being. However, sexual and gender diverse youth (SGDY) who play video games are largely overlooked in this research. SGDY experience significant mental health challenges, but utilize coping strategies mediated by digital technologies, necessitating an examination of their video game playing and its effects on well-being. This literature review synthesizes the emerging evidence base by identifying key constructs related to SGDY well-being and video gaming. Five themes were derived from the literature: (a) SGDY identity development and self-expression in video games; (b) SGDY video gaming and coping skills; (c) Social support in SGDY video gaming communities; (d) SGDY digital microaggressions in video gaming; and (e) SGDY civic engagement through video gaming. The findings establish multiple risks and opportunities for harnessing video games to support SGDY's well-being. Recommendations for practice, research, and industry collaborations are presented.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 it