LGBTQ+ identity concealment and disclosure within the (heteronormative) health professions: “Do I? Do I not? And what are the potential consequences?”
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
In the power-laden context of the health professions, disclosure of LGBTQ+ (or queer) identities carries particular risks, with disclosures to patients/clients seen as ‘unprofessional.’ Pervasive heterosexism and heteronormativity regulate professionals toward conformity, leaving them with ongoing strategic decision-making regarding identity concealment/disclosure. In this qualitative study with 13 health professionals (nurses, physicians, occupational therapists) from across Canada we used in-depth interviews to examine how they engaged with concealment/disclosure and impression management in heteronormative professional contexts. Most disclosed at least selectively with colleagues, but far more rarely with patient/clients, citing harm to therapeutic rapport and violation of professional boundaries. Navigating concealment/disclosure was exhausting and energy-consuming, with constant risk-benefit calculations on multiple levels. Culture change within the professions is critical to create work contexts in which LGBTQ + people can be fully themselves, in turn providing safer spaces for queer patients/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 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 | 0.043 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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