MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4391235050 · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-36204-0_6

Community and Social Support

2024· book-chapter· en· W4391235050 on OpenAlexaff
Chichun Lin, Sel Hwahng

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal LGBTQ health · 2024
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ or LGBTQ+ if the latter context includes other identities) individuals tend to experience high levels of minority stress, which might increase their mental health challenges. Especially for LGBTQ individuals in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), they might additionally experience inadequate access to physical and mental health services, limited financial support, low levels of education, and limited capacity of their governments to solve the societal oppression of this population, which can aggravate minority stress. Social support can buffer the negative effects of minority stress and allow someone to feel cared for, loved, esteemed, valued, and as belonging in their communities. This chapter presents a general overview of social support LGBTQ people may receive from their parents, siblings, school peers, teachers, intimate partners, and colleagues. We also describe the benefits of specific communities of LGBTQ-identifying people, including those who identify as a nonbinary gender, intersex, or asexual/aromantic; those with interests in BDSM, leather, or polyamory lifestyles; people living with HIV; LGBTQ youth and seniors; and virtual and religious communities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0900.015

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.

Opus teacher head0.081
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.347 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal LGBTQ health→Same topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy→French-language works237,207→