Discourse / Discours - Nurses' Work With LGBTQ Patients: "They're Just Like Everybody Else, So What's the Difference"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Informed by critical feminist and queer studies approaches, this article explores nurses' perceptions of practice with patients who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ). Qualitative in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 12 nurses in Halifax, Nova Scotia, illuminate a range of approaches to practice. Most commonly, participants argued that differences such as sexual orientation and gender identity do not matter: Everyone should be treated as a unique individual. Participants seemed anxious to avoid discriminating or stereotyping by avoiding making any assumptions. They were concerned not to offend patients through their language or actions. When social difference was taken into account, the focus was often restricted to sexual health, though some participants showed complex understandings of oppression and marginalization. Distinguishing between generalizations and stereotypes may assist nurses in their efforts to recognize social differences without harming LGBTQ patients.
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| 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".