Queering nursing curricula: Understanding and increasing attention to LGBTQIA+ health needs
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
BACKGROUND: The LGBTQIA+ community has a long history of marginalization, disenfranchisement, and structural violence within the healthcare sector. Sexual and gender minority individuals may be wary of disclosing sexuality-related information to providers, and providers may not have received education on creating therapeutic relationships with these individuals. PURPOSE: This paper explores factors that shape LGBTQIA+ individuals' daily lives and how these may influence care encounters. We argue for broadening nursing education to incorporate more specific and efficacious LGBTQIA+ education. DISCUSSION: We propose that consideration of LGBTQIA+ care in nursing education is an important means of meeting the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN) Essentials of Baccalaureate Education for Professional Nursing. We further suggest specific strategies for so doing. CONCLUSION: Attending to the inclusion of LGBTQIA+ populations when developing and planning nursing education activities assures that newly-graduated nurses can be safe, effective, and nonjudgmental providers of care to a variety of populations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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