Community Support, Community Values: The Experiences of Lesbians Diagnosed with Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study reported in this article was initiated in response to the paucity of literature focused on Canadian lesbians with cancer. The aims of the study were broadly defined: to increase understanding of Canadian lesbians' experiences with cancer and cancer care, and to suggest directions for change such that lesbians with cancer might be better supported by service providers and lesbian communities. The qualitative study, set in Ontario, Canada, employed a participatory action research model. Twenty-six lesbians were interviewed about their experiences of cancer and cancer care. This article reports research participants' narratives about lesbian community. Findings reveal the complex and sometimes contradictory ways that lesbian community unfolds in the lives of lesbians with cancer. While most participants experienced robust and competent community support, participants also reported instances of isolation and disconnection linked to fear of cancer, homophobia in the broader community, and patterns of exclusion within lesbian communities. As well, while lesbian community norms and values appeared to buffer the negative effects of treatment-related physical changes, such norms also manifested as prescriptions for lesbians with cancer. Findings affirmed the value of creating networks among lesbians with cancer within a context of increased accessibility to mainstream cancer services.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".