A Multidimensional Exploration of the Link Between Religiosity and Mental Wellbeing for 2SLGBTQI+ Canadians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
2SLGBTQI+ Canadians occupy various prejudicial cis/heteronormative systems, as illustrated by rapidly increasing homo/bi/transphobia and gender- and sexuality-based violence targeting this population. As a result, their mental wellbeing is progressively deteriorating; the identification of risk and protective factors for this population’s mental wellbeing is vital. Religiosity, although protective for other populations, may be such a risk factor for the mental wellbeing of some 2SLGBTQI+ people. This study investigated and compared how five independent dimensions of religiosity—private practice, ideology, intellect, public practice, and experience—are linked to mental wellbeing for 2SLGBTQI+ Canadians who report a religious belief. Through its cross-sectional design, this study was conducted among self-identified 2SLGBTQI+ people in Canada (N = 903) by means of an online survey from November 2022 to January 2023. The sample contained representation from every Canadian province and territory, as well as diversity in terms of sexual orientations and gender identities. The results of multiple regression analyses, which further compared participants with and without a current religious affiliation, confirmed that religiosity is a complex and multidimensional phenomenon, with dimensions independently serving as protective (i.e. experience and private practice) or as risk (i.e. ideology) factors for 2SLGBTQI+ Canadians. Implications for research and praxis are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".