Housing as a determinant of health for older LGBT Canadians: Focus group findings from a national housing study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article shares key focus group findings from a national study focused on the housing needs of older (55+) lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Canadians. LGBT populations have and continue to face systemic discrimination and barriers to appropriate housing across the life course, and yet little attention has been given to solutions. Many older LGBT adults live alone, face poverty, and have limited familial supports which impact on their housing options. The purpose of this research was to examine how the housing needs of older LGBT Canadians are addressed at community, organizational, and policy levels. Focus group participants in five Canadian provinces were asked to describe their experiences and perceptions of safe, affordable, affirming housing for older LGBT people. Five themes from the data help guide housing providers and policymakers in improving housing for older LGBT Canadians: (a) understanding lifelong and evolving fears of discrimination among older LGBT populations, (b) recognizing diversity among older LGBT populations, (c) operationalizing LGBT-inclusive housing philosophies, (d) addressing isolation and exclusion through housing interventions, and (e) providing LGBT people with tools to access appropriate housing. These themes offer practical policy and programming approaches to address the housing needs and concerns of older LBGT Canadians.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".