MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407336160 · doi:10.1080/29933021.2025.2457674

Socioeconomic disadvantage, COVID-19-related stressors and psychological distress among racialized LGBTQ+ people during the COVID-19 pandemic in Toronto, Canada

2025· article· en· W4407336160 on OpenAlexaffabout
Thabani Nyoni, Peter A. Newman, Notisha Massaquoi, Suchon Tepjan, Zerihun Admassu

Bibliographic record

VenueSexual and Gender Diversity in Social Services · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PandemicDisadvantageStressorSocioeconomic status2019-20 coronavirus outbreakPsychological distressSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)DistressPsychologyMinority stressSociologyMental healthSocial psychologyDemographyMedicinePolitical scienceSexual minorityClinical psychologySexual orientationPsychiatryVirologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the association of socioeconomic disadvantage and pandemic-related stressors with psychological distress (i.e., depression and anxiety symptoms) among 202 predominately racialized LGBTQ+ individuals in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). Participants completed a 45–50-minute online survey assessing socio-demographics, COVID-19 pandemic stress, loneliness/social isolation and psychological distress. We used logistic regression models to test our hypotheses. Results show that socioeconomic disadvantage and pandemic-related stressors were significantly associated with depression and anxiety symptoms. Our findings indicate the need to tailor pandemic preparedness efforts to address the experiences and mental health needs of racialized LGBTQ+ communities for future pandemics and emergency situations.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.339 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSexual and Gender Diversity in Social ServicesSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207