MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391959272 · doi:10.1080/02614367.2024.2316165

Social participation of the older sexual minority population: CLSA data

2024· article· en· W4391959272 on OpenAlexaffabout
Wook Yang, Shelley L. Craig, Carles Muntaner, John A. E. Anderson, Lori E. Ross

Bibliographic record

VenueLeisure Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulationSociologySexual minorityPsychologyDemographic economicsGender studiesDemographySexual orientationEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the growing ageing population in Canada, limited efforts have been made to understand the role of ageing in sexual minority research. The term sexual minority refers to people that do not identify as heterosexual regarding their sexual orientation. In order to examine the role of social factors in sexual minority ageing, the study utilised the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA) baseline data to compare social participation rates between different sexual orientation groups by using the analysis of variance. Findings from the study indicate that social participation levels differ by sexual orientation in both ageing males and females. The results of this study suggest that social participation is an important construct for studies that explore the ageing process of sexual minority populations. In particular, this study’s results related to the lack of social participation in venues such as sports and religious activities points to potential areas of exploration for developing strategies to foster more inclusive environments in order to increase social engagements.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.249
GPT teacher head0.525
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLeisure StudiesSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207