Gender, Heteronormative Attitudes, and Sexual Identity Stability and Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Changes between heterosexual (straight) and lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, and questioning (LGBQ) identities have been observed among a substantial minority of people in longitudinal studies. While a robust base of the literature has explored why women are more likely than men to identify as LGBQ, little research has investigated gendered social factors associated with changes in sexual identity-especially changes from an LGBQ identity to straight. To address this gap, we tested associations between preference for heterosexuality, endorsement of conventional family ideology, and changes in sexual identity in women and men. Analyzing data from a large and representative longitudinal study of Australian adults (ages 20-99 years, M = 50.63), we found a positive association between the endorsement of conventional family ideology and the odds of changing to a straight identity among LGBQ women but not men. Meanwhile, greater preference for heterosexuality increased the odds of changing to a straight identity among GBQ men but not LGBQ women. The vast majority of those changing to a straight identity had previously identified as bisexual, other, or unsure, with very few people changing from gay or lesbian to straight. Our results indicate that social factors are related to sexual identity change in gendered ways.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".