“ <i>Expectation is Always that the Practitioner Might Not Be Okay with Queerness</i> ”: Experiences of LGBTQ+ With the Healthcare System in Saskatchewan, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This project aimed to explore the experiences of perceived mistrust and stigma by the LGBTQ+ members while accessing healthcare services in Saskatchewan, Canada. In partnership with local organization, a community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach was employed and, semi structured descriptive interviews were conducted. Sixteen participants ranging from age 20-60 were recruited and interviewed. Inductive coding method with thematic data analysis was performed, and descriptive comprehensive results were produced. The LGBTQ+ community reported negative experiences within the context of four emerging themes: (a) perceived stigma and discrimination in healthcare settings, (b) practitioners' LGBTQ+-specific healthcare knowledge, (c) the need for LGBTQ+-specific cultural sensitivity and inclusion, and (d) a call for changes in healthcare policy. Each theme and its corresponding experiences serve as a baseline of information to demonstrate the need for improved access to safe healthcare and increased sustainable health for the LGBTQ+ community members. This calls for training and education, establishing cultural sensitivity, and mandating policy changes could improve the experiences of the LGBTQ+ community members.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.040 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".