MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7133082489

Mental Health, Coping, Resilience, and Community in Plurisexual Emerging Adults

2023· dissertation· W7133082489 on OpenAlexaffabout
Brittni Jessica Glenwright

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2023
Typedissertation
Language
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsDe Veber
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthPsychological interventionStressorPsychological resilienceMinority stressSocial supportAnxietyPopulationDistress
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite cultural shifts in the acceptance of sexual minority individuals, plurisexual people continue to face mental health disparities in comparison to their monosexual counterparts. This study investigated how stressors (e.g., identity uncertainty, internalized homonegativity, experiences of microaggression), and resources (e.g., resilience, social support, connectedness to LGBTQIA2S+ communities) relate to psychological well-being and distress in plurisexual emerging adults. It also explored how this population describes and labels their sexual identities. Participants completed an online survey assessing the above-listed variables, as well as measures related to sexual identity, fluidity, and coping. All 774 participants were between the ages of 18 and 29, experienced attraction to more than one gender, and were living in Canada or the USA. Results indicated high levels of anxiety and depression in the sample. Minority stress was predictive of poorer mental health outcomes, while social support and resilience served as protective factors. Implications for counselling interventions are discussed, as well as the importance of education and training for clinicians to address the specific needs of this population.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.418 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy→French-language works237,207→