MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412784142 · doi:10.7202/1119017ar

Experiences of Peer Interaction Amongst Autistic LGBTQ+ Youth in Secondary Schools

2025· article· en· W4412784142 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Brianna Comeau

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social work review · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article highlights the importance of supporting the LGBTQ+ autistic community in the secondary school environment. While there is general agreement that schools need to be safe spaces, there is a dearth of literature understanding how schools can be safe spaces for individuals identifying as autistic and LGBTQ+. Using qualitative data from videoconference (Zoom) interviews with six LGBTQ+ autistic youth in Ontario secondary institutions, this study examined how interactions with peers shape identity, mental health, well-being, and social belonging. Informed by intersectionality theory and by critical perspectives on neurodiversity, this study found that LGBTQ+ autistic youth faced discrimination through microaggressions, peer victimization, and stereotyping, which led to feelings of low levels of safety in their school environments. Participants also had positive, affirming experiences relating to peers who would advocate and recognize LGBTQ+ and autistic identities. Participants spoke about supporting other peers who experienced similar challenges. This research has implications for social work practice, as it points to the importance of developing mentorship opportunities, implementing anti-discriminatory training and policies, respecting self-identification, and engaging in self-reflection to foster increased well-being and safety for LGBTQ+ autistic youth in school settings.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.788
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.347 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social work reviewSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207