MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404024977 · doi:10.22215/cujs.v3i1.4802

Validation of the Brief Perceived Sexual Minority Discrimination Questionnaire-Community Version

2024· article· en· W4404024977 on OpenAlexaff
Saghar Shadabi, Joshua Remedios, Katie E. Gunnell, Chad Danyluck

Bibliographic record

VenueCarleton undergraduate journal of science. · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySocial psychologyApplied psychologyClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sexual minorities—people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, etc.—experience unique forms of discrimination. Yet few validated measures assess sexual minority discrimination, and none allow for comparison with other forms of discrimination. I examined an adaption of the Brief Perceived Ethnic Discrimination Questionnaire-Community Version (PEDQ-CVB) for use with sexual minorities (PSMDQ-CVB). Sexual minority participants complete the PSMDQ-CVB online in addition to measures of harassment, sexual minority identity, and well-being (N = 528). Exploratory factor analysis found that the PSMDQ-CVB's factor structure was inconsistent with the four-factor structure of the original PEDQ-CVB. The 16 items retained had strong internal consistency, and good convergent validity with measures of sexual minority discrimination. The PSMDQ-CVB had good divergent validity with measures of stressful life events, and sexual minority identity, and good predictive validity with well-being measures related to discrimination: symptoms of depression, anxiety, and physical ill-being. Results support the psychometric validity of the PSMDQ-CVB.

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)0.002
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 score0.661
Threshold uncertainty score0.760

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.313 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCarleton undergraduate journal of science.Same topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207