“It Literally Can Save Lives”: How Challenging Structural Inequities in Sexual Orientation and Gender Priorities Can Create Change in the Canadian Dietetic Profession
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Our aim was to explore Canadian dietitians’ knowledge, beliefs, and values relating to the nutritional care of Two-Spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and other queer groups (2SLGBTQ+). Methods: The research was qualitative and used a poststructural theoretical lens. Interviews were conducted with 16 Canadian dietitians. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: Three themes were noted: (i) moving away from the binary; (ii) systemic discrimination and 2SLGBTQ+ experiences; and (iii) professional organizations and advocacy. The participants discussed structural, professional, and cultural barriers that affect the nutrition and health experiences of sexual and gender diverse groups. Conclusion: Dietetic institutions and regulatory bodies must provide sexual and gender diversity resources and engage in activities that acknowledge the lives and nutritional concerns of sexual and gender diverse people. Such advocacy is a means to provide more inclusive and equitable care. Key recommendations for structural changes within the profession include using an intersectional lens and a critical dietetic approach to nutritional care.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.040 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".