Recommendations from LGBTQ+ adults for increased inclusion within physical activity: a qualitative content analysis
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
For decades, physical activity contexts have been inherently exclusionary toward LGBTQ+ participation through their perpetuation of practices and systems that support sexuality- and gender-based discrimination. Progress toward LGBTQ+ inclusivity within physical activity has been severely limited by a lack of actionable and practical suggestions. The purpose of this study was to garner an extensive account of suggestions for inclusivity from LGBTQ+ adults. Using an online cross-sectional survey, LGBTQ+ adults (N = 766) were asked the following open-ended question, "in what ways do you think physical activity could be altered to be more inclusive of LGBTQ+ participation?" The resulting texts were coded using inductive qualitative content analysis. All coding was subject to critical peer review. Participants' suggestions have been organized and presented under two overarching points of improvement: (a) creation of safe(r) spaces and (b) challenging the gender binary. Participants (n = 558; 72.8%) outlined several components integral to the creation and maintenance of safe(r) spaces such as: (i) LGBTQ+ memberships, (ii) inclusivity training for fitness facility staff, (iii) informative advertisement of LGBTQ+ inclusion, (iv) antidiscrimination policies, and (v) diverse representation. Suggestions for challenging the gender binary (n = 483; 63.1%) called for the creation of single stalls or gender-neutral locker rooms, as well as for the questioning of gender-based stereotypes and binary divisions of gender within physical activity (e.g., using skill level and experience to divide sports teams as opposed to gender). The findings of this study represent a multitude of practical suggestions for LGBTQ+ inclusivity that can be applied to a myriad of physical activity contexts.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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