An Exploration of the Experience of Lesbians with Chronic Illness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An exploration of the challenges facing lesbians with chronic conditions and their coping strategies was investigated by examining the experiences of participants who were clients of a volunteer organization serving chronically ill lesbians. This article reports the results associated with those challenges, with its ultimate goal being and to assess the effectiveness of current services. Using the participant observation method, as employed by O'Toole (2000 O'Toole, C. J. 2000. The view from below: Developing a knowledge base about an unknown population. Sexuality and Disability, 18(3): 207–224. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), the analysis was based on multiple data sources and 10 years experience within the volunteer organization, including 3 years in direct client support. A qualitative method served as the primary focus for the study. The quantitative method preceded the qualitative method and provided limited supporting data. The total number of participants included all past and current clients, but the number participating in each data source varied. Qualitative sources included archival structured interviews (n = 69), taped interviews (n = 5-6), and extensive comments written in response to the quantitative surveys (n = 14). The quantitative measures (n = 14) included the researcher-developed Chronic Conditions Challenges Checklist (C4) and the Short Form of the McGill Pain Questionnaire ([SF-MPQ]; Melzack, 1998 Melzack, R. 1998. “The short-form McGill pain questionnaire”. In The compendium of quality of life instruments, Edited by: Salek, S. 2J:3–2J:3C. New York: Wiley. (Compiler) [Google Scholar] ). A content analysis of all data sources found a number of challenges that met the criteria of being identified in at least two data sources and across multiple participants. Challenges included those related to the disease process (i.e., pain, fatigue, and decreases in mobility) to impacts of the condition (financial security, ability to participate, support from family of origin and independence, loneliness, and issues related to mental health). Challenges were discussed in terms of those that are similar to and different from other women suffering from chronic illness, as well as their relevance to related literature.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".