Building Families Through Healthcare: Experiences of Lesbians Using Reproductive Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of assisted human reproduction (AHR) represents a meaningful and important life event for lesbians wishing to create biologically related families. Despite increasing numbers of lesbians utilizing AHR services, barriers to access persist. This qualitative study investigated the experiences of lesbians and their interactions with reproductive services in Ontario, Canada, where limited public funding is available for all AHR patients and where the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) community makes up to 30% of clientele. Eleven semi-structured interviews were conducted, and findings revealed a wide range of experiences. Lesbian patients expressed a desire for more support from their care providers in navigating a complex and costly medical journey through a system largely designed for the needs of heterosexual patients. Additionally, private fertility clinics, as the environment for accessing publicly funded services, were felt to contribute pressure to pay out-of-pocket for add-on medical procedures. To improve the quality of care, participants recommended providing more high-level information on the medical journey and taking an individual approach with lesbian patients, in particular, assuming a patient has sufficient fertility until proven otherwise.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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".