MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407991864 · doi:10.3390/socsci14030145

A Comparative Analysis of Attitudes Toward Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Minority People

2025· article· en· W4407991864 on OpenAlexaff
B. J. Rye, Rebecca Goldszmidt

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Jerome's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSexual orientationPsychologyGender identitySexual identityOrientation (vector space)Sexual minoritySocial psychologyIdentity (music)Developmental psychologyHuman sexualityGender studiesSociologyMathematicsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Attitudes toward sexual and gender minority people is a generative field of study leading to theoretical and practical advances. Adding to this body of literature, we sought to investigate relationships between attitudes toward different sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) minority groups. University student participants (N = 495) were asked to rate 11 targets using a 101-point feeling thermometer scale. The targets included trans, bisexual, asexual, and polyamorous men and women, along with lesbians, gay men, and gender non-conforming persons. Heterosexual men and women targets were included for comparison. Analyses addressed two main question areas: (1) Were the various SOGI minority targets rated similarly/differently? (2) Do ratings of the targets differ as a function of target and participant demographic characteristics? Generally, SOGI ratings were favourable (78–85%) except for polyamorous targets (66%). While there were some statistically significant rating differences between some SOGI targets (e.g., lesbians were rated more favourably than asexual women; 85% versus 83%, respectively), data reduction analyses (i.e., Principal Components Analysis) with the 11 SOGI target ratings supported the possibility of aggregating attitudes into a single SOGI target group variable. The second research goal involved exploring whether ratings differed as a function of participant characteristics, including sexual orientation, gender, and religiosity. The analysis revealed that attitudes significantly differed based on all three participant factors. In general, those who rated the targets most favourably were those who were queer, women, or not-at-all religious. However, the SOGI target gender did not result in differences in target ratings (e.g., asexual women and asexual men were equal). The findings further the literature on attitudes toward various SOGI minorities, providing support for the theory that there is a latent factor underlying perceiver attitudes toward SOGI minorities and indicating a need to consider demographic characteristics of social perceivers.

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 score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.163
GPT teacher head0.521
Teacher spread0.358 · 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial SciencesSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207