Advance care planning among older LGBT Canadians: Heteronormative influences
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advance care planning (ACP) in North America often takes place in a cultural context of great ambivalence about death and dying, challenging efforts to discuss end-of-life care desires and preparations for death. Such challenges are amplified for sexual and gender minority older adults who often lack connections to traditional heteronormative systems of support. The extent of ACP preparation (completed documents, discussions) and their predictors was examined among a national sample of 91 community-dwelling Canadian LGBT older adults (mean age 68). The sample was disproportionately single and lived alone; more trans participants had children and about half of all participants reported a chosen family. About two-thirds of participants had a will, while less than half had a living will and power of attorney for health care, and a quarter had made informal caregiving arrangements. Just over one-third of respondents reported having discussions about future care and end-of-life plans. The only significant predictors of both ACP documents completed and ACP discussions undertaken were relationship status (those in a relationship were more likely to have engaged in both) and number of children (those with children were less likely to have completed documents). Given that most LGBT older adults are single, efforts must be expanded to reach and engage these individuals in preparing for end of life.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it