Minority Stressors and Connectedness Among Urban Gay, Bisexual, and Queer Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Among sexual minority men, gay, bisexual, and queer men (GBQM) may experience differences in terms of their sense of belonging to a sexual minority community (community connectedness), outness about their sexual identity, and their experiences of proximal and distal sexuality-based stressors. Although group membership can confer unique benefits to members of marginalized groups, including GBQM, these benefits are likely unequal across the range of identity groups included in this acronym. We analyzed data from 1,827 human immunodeficiency viruses (HIV)-negative cisgender men living in Canada to examine how three different sexual identities, gay, bisexual, and queer, are associated with minority stress, social variables, and outness. Compared with gay and bisexual men, queer men scored lower on measures of identity concealment and internalized homonegativity, were more open about their sexuality in their social networks and reported higher community connectedness. Compared with queer and gay men, bisexual men reported higher rates of identity concealment and internalized homonegativity, were less open about their sexuality and reported less perceived social support and lower community connectedness. Although bisexual men overall also reported less discrimination, bisexual identity moderated the association between distal stress and proximal stress, such that bisexual men who experienced more distal stress were particularly sensitive to its impact and experienced higher proximal stress. Future research with sexual minority men should attend to identity diversity within this group, as minority stressors, social variables, and outness differ between GBQM.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".