Centering sexual and gender diversity within Compassionate Communities: insights from a community network of LGBTQ2S+ older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE: The Compassionate Communities movement emphasizes the importance of illness, disability, dying, caregiving, and grief across the lifespan and highlights the communal responsibility of caring for one another. There is a need to recognize and incorporate the needs of diverse communities within this movement and research on dying, caregiving and grief. An important axis of this diversity is related to individuals' sexual orientation and gender identity. METHODS: As part of the early phases of Healthy End of Life Project Ottawa, a Compassionate Communities, community-based, participatory action research project, we held focus groups with older members of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and two-spirit communities. Nine older lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and two-spirit people participated in the focus groups (mean age = 72 years). Data were analysed using an inductive, reflexive thematic approach. RESULTS: Through an iterative analysis process, we identified themes related to lifecourse experiences of trauma, the need for safety within care contexts, the importance of relationships and connection, as well as participants' ability to ask for and receive help. A core tenet of Compassionate Communities involves responding to the needs of diverse communities with respect to aging, end-of-life, and grief. Our findings emphasize the importance of incorporating the voices of diverse sexual and gender identities and promoting health equity within Compassionate Community initiatives.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".