“We Are Resilient, We Made It to This Point”: A Study of the Lived Experiences of Older LGBTQ2S+ Canadians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Promoting health and well-being for older adults is a priority among many jurisdictions worldwide. Canada's population is aging and becoming increasingly diverse; one axis of a diverse aging population is aging members of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and two-spirit (LGBTQ2S+) communities. We sought to examine the lived experiences of older LGBTQ2S+ people in Canada to understand the barriers and facilitators to healthy aging among members of these communities. A total of 10 focus groups were held in 10 cities from across Canada. Sixty-one older LGBTQ2S+ people (Mean age = 67) participated in the study. Data were analyzed using a constructivist grounded theory approach. Through analysis, we identified themes related to the importance of community capacity, resources, resilience, and personal histories in shaping aging experiences. The findings highlight the importance acknowledging diverse sexual and gender identities and the role of the life course in developing and implementing approaches that promote healthy aging.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".