The Health and Social Service Needs of Gay and Lesbian Elders and Their Families in Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This article reports the findings of a study, undertaken in 2000, whose purpose was to gather information about the experiences and realities of gay and lesbian seniors and their families from across Canada in accessing a broad range of health and social services in the community, and to examine the role of health care and social service organizations in shaping access and service delivery. DESIGN AND METHODS: This study used a qualitative exploratory design based on focus group interviews. Perspectives of older gay men and lesbians and their families involved in organizations addressing these issues, as well as professionals from both gay and lesbian health organizations and mainstream elder care organizations were sought. RESULTS: Specific reference was made to the impact of discrimination on the health and access to health services of these populations. Issues relating to invisibility, historic and current barriers to care, and the nature of service options are identified. IMPLICATIONS: Recommendations for change are highlighted, including those related to best practice programs and policies in the long-term care sector.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it