An experimental laboratory‐based minority stress paradigm for alcohol research among sexual minority women: A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sexual minority women (SMW) use alcohol at higher rates and experience greater alcohol-related harms than their heterosexual counterparts. Evidence from observational studies suggests that minority stress (i.e., stress experienced due to marginalization in society) is an important risk factor among SMW, yet there is a lack of experimental evidence to establish a direct causal role of minority stress on alcohol use in this population. We adapted the preexisting personalized guided stress induction paradigm to conduct a pilot study of how minority stress is related to stress response (assessed via subjective measures and salivary cortisol) and mechanisms of alcohol use (craving, demand, and risky decision making) in SMW. METHODS: Using a within-subjects design (N = 8) cisgender SMW who endorsed high-risk drinking (≥1 heavy drinking episode in the past 30 days) completed three study visits: a script development session and two in-person imagery induction appointments (minority stress and neutral). Analyses examined feasibility and acceptability, stress response, and mechanisms of alcohol use. RESULTS: The paradigm significantly increased subjective stress response (g = 1.32). Data supported the feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of the paradigm for use with SMW. While the paradigm did not significantly change scores on minority stress and alcohol outcomes measures, effect sizes for craving and minority stress outcomes were in the small-to-medium range (gs = 0.24-0.54). CONCLUSIONS: The adapted minority stress paradigm appears to be feasible and appropriate for use with SMW to induce stress in laboratory settings. Future research can use this paradigm to understand the causal effects of minority stress on alcohol use and related outcomes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".