Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To describe the cancer experience of gay men and lesbian women. RESEARCH APPROACH: Descriptive, qualitative analysis. SETTING: Ambulatory cancer center in a midsized Canadian city. PARTICIPANTS: 3 gay men and 4 lesbian women with cancer. METHODOLOGIC APPROACH: In-depth, face-to-face interviews were conducted with a semistructured interview guide. Transcribed interviews were analyzed, and themes were identified within and among individuals. FINDINGS: Coded transcripts of the interview data yielded four themes: Disclosure related to individuals' experiences in revealing their sexual orientation to cancer care providers, Response to Partner described the role of partners in the care continuum and healthcare providers' responses to the presence of same-sex partners, Support From Others addressed the lack of support groups for gay and lesbian clients, and Body Image concerned the alterations to physical appearance resulting from cancer and its treatments and the unique role that image plays in gay and lesbian communities. CONCLUSIONS: Overt homophobia or discrimination within the cancer care system was not experienced by this study's participants. Participants valued the central role of their partners in coping with cancer. Some gaps in the cancer care system related to support groups were identified. INTERPRETATION: Although the participants did not experience overt discrimination in the cancer care system, nurses should continue to ensure that sensitive care is provided to the gay and lesbian 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 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".