Social-support buffers the effect of internalized homonegativity on intrusive sexual thoughts/behaviors.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men, intrusive sexual thoughts/behaviors (i.e., distress about one's sexual urges or behaviors) are associated with depression and engagement in behavior that increases the risk for sexually transmitted infections (STIs). The present study examines the association between internalized homonegativity and intrusive sexual thoughts/behaviors, the intervening effect of depression symptoms, and the potential buffering effect of social support. Furthermore, we establish the subsequent link with physical health outcomes by examining the association between intrusive sexual thoughts/behaviors and recent bacterial STI diagnosis. METHOD: = 1,046) from three time points, we conducted a moderated mediation analysis and logistic regression. RESULTS: < .001, 95% CI [1.30, 2.16]). CONCLUSION: Given that social support mitigated the impact of internalized homonegativity on intrusive sexual thoughts/behaviors, ultimately indirectly reducing the occurrence of bacterial STIs in this population, these findings demonstrate the utility of psychosocial factors as potential intervention targets for improving the health of gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".