MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048786900 · doi:10.1177/0261018306068474

Lesbian and gay health issues: OUTside of Canada’s health policy

2006· article· en· W2048786900 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Andrea Daley

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Social Policy · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsCitizenshipLesbianHeterosexualityIdeologyGender studiesVisibilityInclusion (mineral)Reproductive healthSociologyHomosexualityHealth careHuman sexualityPolitical sciencePoliticsLawPopulationGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article uses the notion of sexual citizenship as an analytical tool to uncover the ideology of heterosexuality underlying the assumptions in current ideas of citizenship. It highlights how this ideology, as reflected in the Canadian health care delivery model, is embedded in the Canada Health Act, as a health policy. It indicates that the process of sexualizing citizenship focuses attention on the monolithic construct of the heterosexual citizen while, paradoxically creating a space for lesbian and gay visibility within the health care arena. This visibility, however, is based on a partial citizenship, in that, the ideology of heterosexuality prevents lesbian women and gay men from exercising their full right as citizens to health provisions as guaranteed by the Canada Health Act. In this way, lesbian and gay visibility is characterized by exclusion. The notion of sexual citizenship is used as a strategy towards inclusion.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.869
Threshold uncertainty score0.952

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0420.025
Scholarly communication0.0160.003
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.421 · 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

Citations17
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Social PolicySame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207