Protocol for a scoping review on technology use and sexual and gender minority youth and mental health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Research indicates that sexual and gender minority youth [SGMY] may engage more with information communication technologies [ICTs] more than their non-SGMY counterparts Craig SL et al. 2020. While scholarship generally explores youth's use of ICTs, there are gaps in scholarship that connect SGMY, their ICT engagement and influences to mental health. This scoping review will synthesize the literature that connects these core concepts in order to better understand the influence ITCs have on the mental health of SGMY and to develop a more fulsome understanding of this emerging area of literature. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Following the scoping review framework of Arksey and O'Malley, the search will be conducted in the PsycINFO [Ovid interface, 1980-], MEDLINE [Ovid interface, 1948-], CINAHL [EBSCO interface, 1937-], Sociological Abstracts [ProQuest interface, 1952-], Social Services Abstracts [ProQuest interface, 1979-], and Scopus. Descriptive summaries and thematic analysis will summarize the articles that meet the inclusion criteria using an extraction table. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The review outlined in this paper provides an overview of information that exists on the technology use of SGMY, ICTs and the interconnection with mental health. Results will be disseminated through peer reviewed journals and national and international conferences. As information collected for this paper as is retrieved from publicly available sources, ethics approval is not required.
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 | 0.103 | 0.117 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.132 | 0.029 |
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".