SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCLOSURE AND RETIREMENT PLANNING AMONG CANADIAN BOOMERS: THE POTENTIAL MEDIATION BY SOCIAL SUPPORT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) older adults face unique challenges at all stages of the life course-and particularly in the later years; these challenges derive from multiple sources including demographics (aging without partners and children), stigma and discrimination (from interpersonal, social, and institutional sources) and related psychosocial issues (e.g., higher rates of depression and loneliness).This symposium, drawing from two large Canadian studies, adds further context and detail on the needs and barriers of LGBT older persons in preparation for later life.The individual presentations underscore the diversity within the LGBT communities and are similarly diverse representing both qualitative and quantitative research, drawing from the perspectives of the LGBT older adult as well as care providers.De Vries and colleagues present on focus group research from sites across Canada with LGBT persons addressing preparations for end of life: amidst a range of commonalities in preparedness (and attitudes), they also find important differences attributable to sexual orientation and gender identity.Gutman and colleagues provide a complementary view based on focus group research with service providers from several sites across Canada: they reveal both an awareness of LGBT aging issues-and several areas that would benefit from educational intervention.Mock and Plante offer a quantitative study of Canadian LGBT boomers finding that preparations for later life, including retirement, are enhanced by level of "outness: " disclosure facilitates planning and preparation.Brennan-Ing offers perspective on these findings, placing them in the context of research, programs, and initiatives in the US.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".