‘In the North you can’t be openly gay’: Contextualising sexual practices among sexually and gender diverse persons in Northern Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scant research has addressed health and well-being among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) persons in the Arctic. The Northwest Territories (NWT) has among Canada's highest rates of sexually transmitted infections (STIs). LGBTQ persons in NWT are at the nexus of LGBTQ and Arctic health disparities. Yet little is known of their sexual health needs. This qualitative study explored the sexual health needs of LGBTQ persons in the NWT. We conducted semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 51 participants, including 16 LGBTQ youth aged 15-24, 21 LGBTQ adults aged 25 and above, and 14 key informants who worked with LGBTQ persons. Social-ecological approaches to understanding sexual health guided this study. Participants discussed how structural contexts such as heteronormativity in sexual health education and a lack of access to safer sex tools constrained their ability to practice safer sex. Social contexts of intersectional stigma resulted in shame, concealing identities, and fear of accessing safer sex materials. Myriad factors influenced partner communication about safer sex practices, including honesty, consent, and relationship power. Findings suggest the need for comprehensive sexuality education and interventions that address syndemics of substance use, stigma, and low self-esteem to advance sexual health among LGBTQ persons in Northern Canada.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".