MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394706341 · doi:10.1016/j.lana.2024.100737

Discriminatory experiences among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men, and transgender and non-binary individuals: a cross sectional analysis

2024· article· en· W4394706341 on OpenAlexaff
Lucilene Freitas, Thiago S. Torres, Brenda Hoagland, Mayara Secco Torres Silva, Valdiléa G. Veloso, Beatriz Grinsztejn, João Luiz Bastos, Paula M. Luz

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Regional Health - Americas · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersFundação Oswaldo CruzFundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de JaneiroNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsTransgenderPsychologyDemographyRace (biology)IntersectionalityClinical psychologyGender studiesSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Several systems of oppression combine in complex ways to impact the lives of minority populations. Following an intersectionality framework, we assessed the frequency and perceived reasons for discrimination among gay, bisexual, and other cisgender men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender and non-binary individuals (TGNB), stratified by race. Methods Online survey among MSM and TGNB ≥18 years living in Brazil, between November/2021 and January/2022. We used the 18-item Explicit Discrimination Scale to assess day-to-day experiences of differential treatment, and perceived discrimination. For each item, participants indicated their perceived reasons for differential treatment using 14 pre-defined options. Negative binomial regression models assessed if race was a significant predictor of discrimination. Subsequent models, stratified by race, examined associations of perceived reasons and number of reasons with perceived discrimination. Findings Of 8464 MSM and TGNB, 4961 (58.6%) were White, 2173 (25.7%) Pardo (Brazil's official term for admixed populations), and 1024 (12.1%) Black. Black participants' scores for perceived discrimination (mean, standard deviation) were higher (10.2, 8.8) [ Pardo (6.5, 6.8), White (5.2, 5.7)], and race was both the main reason for and the strongest predictor of perceived discrimination. The number of reasons participants used to interpret their discriminatory experiences was also a predictor of discrimination score among White, Pardo , and Black participants. Interpretation LGBTQIA+phobia was highly prevalent among all participants. Additionally, our results indicated that Black MSM and TGNB participants were more frequently discriminated against than other racial groups, with racial discrimination uniquely contributing these experiences. Funding Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.149
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations13
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Regional Health - AmericasSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207