MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2939194904 · doi:10.1177/0091415019843520

Later Life Care Planning and Concerns of Transgender Older Adults in Canada

2019· article· en· W2939194904 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Aging and Human Development · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Frailty Network
KeywordsTransgenderGerontologyScholarshipPromotion (chess)Focus groupHealth carePsychologyTransgender peopleMedicineSociologyGender studiesPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While the particular health-care concerns of transgender people have been documented and transgender aging is an emerging area of scholarship, little is known about planning for later and end-of-life care among transgender older adults. As part of a larger project, focus groups and interviews were conducted with 24 transgender older adults (average age 70 years) living in five cities in Canada exploring their concerns and explicit plans for later life care. Three primary themes emerged: (a) “dealing with the day-to-day” reflecting economic precarity and transitioning in later life, (b) fractures and support within family and community, and (c) “there’s a huge gap between principle and practice” reflecting mixed experiences and perceptions of health-care services. These themes suggest that effective promotion of care planning among older transgender persons requires an appreciation of the daily exigencies of their lives and the extent and nature of social support available to them.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.895

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it