MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210396191 · doi:10.32920/cd.v6i2.1444

Experiences of LGBTQ-identifying students, interns and practitioners of dietetics

2022· article· en· W4210396191 on OpenAlex
Michele A. DeBiasse, Amy Branham, Nicole McFarland

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Critical Dietetics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDietetics, Nutrition, and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransgenderLesbianSnowball samplingQueerPsychologySexual orientationHealth careCovertMedical educationQualitative researchMental healthNursingMedicineSocial psychologySociologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Individuals who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and/or queer (LGBTQ) currently comprise over five percent of the population in America. It is unknown how many dietetics students, interns, or practitioners identify as LGBTQ as these data are not collected by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics nor its “sister” organizations. Research suggests that LGBTQ-identifying folx, experience higher rates of anxiety, depression, stigmatization, discrimination and isolation and many have unmet healthcare needs. This holds for LGBTQ-identified individuals studying and practicing in healthcare professions but to date there have been no studies of the dietetics profession. To explore the experiences of LGBTQ-identifying dietetics students, interns and practitioners we conducted a mixed-methods study grounded in Feminist Standpoint theory. National convenience and snowball sampling strategies generated n=131 students, interns and professionals of ACEND-accredited programs for our survey and n=10 for our semi-structured interviews. Qualitative analyses identified themes of overt and covert “underminers” of success including heteronormative assumptions/talk, misgendering, microaggressions, self-editing and closeting, and identified a lack of adequate LGBTQ-related healthcare content in academics/training. Supporters of success included people/groups with supportive characteristics, therapists/mental health professionals, and passion for the field. Survey data indicated significant differences between heterosexual and non-heterosexual respondents to a number of questions including homosexuality in society, awareness of LGBTQ community experiences, importance of academic content/training on nutrition assessment/care of LGBTQ-identified folx and responsibility for advocacy for LGBTQ-identifying patients/clients. Our results indicate need for better data collection, improved coursework/training on inclusion and greater content on nutrition/healthcare needs for LGBTQ-identifying patients and clients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.592

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.397 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it