The lion, the witch and the wardrobe; ageing GLBTIs (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and intersex people) and aged care: a literature review in the Australian context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The needs of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex people (GLBTI) in residential aged care services in Australia can be dismissed as non-important or non-existent because of the minimal amount of reporting and research undertaken in the area. Society's view about people who live with a sexual preference other than heterosexual can be often seen as judgemental and discriminatory. In terms of health services, judgemental and discriminatory practices towards GLBTI people frequently results in poor utilisation of health services by people from within sexual minority groups. As the Australian population ages however, frail older people from sexual minority groups may be reluctant not only to utilise mainstream health services, but also residential aged care for fear of continuing discrimination. The dominant heteronormative discourse that pervades the majority of the residential aged care sector may increase feelings of isolation and exclusion for ageing GLBTI people. Consistent with anti-discrimination legislation, aged care must be made accessible to all groups in society and services improved to cater for older GLBTI people, their carers and their families. This paper examines the available literature in Australia on ageing GLBTI people and aged care services with reference to the USA and Canadian experience. From the review of literature, this paper will provide discussion on the unpreparedness of the Australian residential aged care services to cater appropriately for GLBTI people and identify issues to be included in further research. (author abstract)
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".