Experiences with social support among older adult women participating in gay square dancing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
LGBTQI2S+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning, intersex, and two-spirit, etc.) individuals face unique challenges to physical activity participation, such as discrimination and exclusion. Square dance is a form of collaborative group dancing and while traditionally a heteronormative form of dance, gay square dance is typically open to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation. Square dancing offers opportunities to belong to a community of others engaged in the same activity, which older adults often find satisfying. The aim of this research was to understand how older adults who identify as women experience social support in the context of participating in gay square dance and the role previous experiences of social exclusion play in influencing these experiences. Fourteen self-identified women (age range 55-79 years; n = 11 White, n = 1 Black, n = 2 Jewish) belonging to a gay square dance club participated. Participants self-identified as heterosexual (n = 7), lesbian (n = 3), pansexual (n = 1), bisexual (n = 1), or did not identify with existing terminology (n = 2). Interviews were conducted during a gay square-dancing festival and thematically analyzed. Findings highlighted that participants experienced acceptance which affirmed their sense of self and enabled their authentic selves. To foster a sense of belonging and close relationships, specific actions (e.g., demonstrative welcoming of newcomers, mutual support) were taken by other participants in the group. Physical touch is an inherent part of square dancing, which took on different meanings for participants and was overall perceived as safe. Inclusive groups like gay square dance clubs are an important and consistent means where older adult women can experience meaningful social relationships and interactions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".