MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413171685 · doi:10.1080/01443410.2025.2541743

Digital microaggressions and LGBTQ+ youth: exploring potential impacts and opportunities for educational intervention

2025· article· en· W4413171685 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Lauren B. McInroy, Travis R. Scheadler, Mel McDonald, Andrew D. Eaton, Shelley L. Craig

Bibliographic record

VenueEducational Psychology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Regina
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)PsychologyDevelopmental psychologyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

LGBTQ+ youth frequently leverage the affordances of internet-enabled information and communication technologies (ICTs) to support their identity development, mental health, and well-being. Yet, anti-LGBTQ+ intolerance simultaneously persists in their digitally mediated contexts—including in the form of digital microaggressions. Data from an online survey of LGBTQ+ youth (age 14–24) residing across the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada were used to explore the relationships between six types of digital microaggressions, perceived stress, mental health, and psychological well-being through structural equation modelling. Findings suggest that exposure to some types of digital microaggressions may produce direct, incremental, and negative impacts on LGBTQ+ youth. Experiencing and witnessing discriminatory digital microaggressions had the most consistently significant relationships. Opportunities for future scholarship and insights for supportive intervention by caregivers, educators, and other professionals 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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.194
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designQualitative
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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEducational PsychologySame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207