Connection Failure: Systemic Disadvantages Facing the LGBTQ+ Community in Therapy and how to Address them
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the experiences of members of the LGBTQ+ community in accessing mental health care in Ottawa, Canada, both positive and negative, and what might be done to improve outcomes. The paper includes a literature review of empirical studies and theoretical works about conducting therapy with LGBTQ+ clients, as well as the results of a pilot study conducted by the researcher to examine in depth the experience of a small sample of LGBTQ+ clients in Ottawa (N=4). Through semi-structured interviews, the researcher found that three out of four participants had experienced some dissatisfaction with how their identity was addressed in therapy, and as a result their overall well-being had suffered. This implies that therapists could be doing more to connect with their LGBTQ+ clients, potentially through better educating themselves on the issues affecting the community, as recommended by the participants. Increasing therapist knowledge would likely improve mental health outcomes for LGBTQ+ clients.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".