The Power of Recognition: A Qualitative Study of Social Connectedness and Wellbeing through LGBT Sporting, Creative and Social Groups in Ireland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The broad research consensus suggesting substantial vulnerabilities among lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) communities may fail to recognize the protective factors available to these populations. The sparse literature on mental health promotion highlights the importance of understanding strengths-based community approaches that promote LGBT wellbeing. Informed by the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion, underpinned by Honneth’s Theory of Recognition, this paper outlines the findings of a qualitative Irish study on LGBT social connectedness through a diverse range of sporting, creative and social interests. Ten in-depth interviews were conducted with 11 people (including one couple) who self-identified as lesbian (5), gay (4), bisexual (1) and transgender (1) aged between 22 and 56 years. A university Research Ethics Committee granted approval. The data were transcribed and coded using thematic analysis, enhanced through a memo-writing approach to reflexivity. The theme of ‘connecting’ emphasized the shared nature of activities, with like-minded others through groups established by, and for, LGBT communities. Messages from the study reinforce the central role of LGBT communities in the promotion of mental health and social wellbeing, with important policy and practice implications. This requires the contextualization of the contribution of LGBT communities within understandings of social justice, identity and recognition.
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 | 0.018 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".