The Process of Losing and Regaining Credibility When Coming-Out at Midlife
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research was to investigate the coming-out process for women at midlife, and to understand how this process of coming-out affects women's health and health care relationships. Using feminist grounded theory, from the interview data we elicited an understanding of how women experienced the coming-out process, how the process influenced their health and health care, what they considered problematic about the process, and how they managed or resolved problematic issues. The basic social process (BSP) of confronting the taken for granted illustrated how the central problem of credibility was experienced. The BSP has three phases: facing scary love, finding me, and settling in. Variables that impact on these phases are support and the concomitant microprocess of enduring perpetual outing. The findings provide a theoretical framework needed for health care providers to understand the coming-out process for midlife women and how it influences their health and health care. The theory provides new insights into the complexity for women transitioning to lesbian at midlife.
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 | 0.016 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".