Health policies for the LGBT population, cultural competence, and the organization for access to services:
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a literature review that aimed to analyze the scope of public health policies for the LGBT population in different countries on the European continent, North America and Oceania in order to identify the differences and similarities in content and organization of services and programs. 24 articles were selected to compose the corpus of this review. The results demonstrated the existence of different scopes of health policies for LGBT in the USA, Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom and a heterogeneous result with regard to the objective of the implementation of actions, with emphasis on directions related to LGBT aging, smoking cessation, control of alcohol and other drugs use, as well as cancer and HIV care policies. There was a predominance of approaches limited to the diseases (or unsafe sexual practices, instead focus to comprehensive health care to the LGBT population at different levels of complexity in health care. Furthermore, cultural differences imply granting comprehensive or restrictive health rights. It's necessary to improve the design of public health promotion policies for gender and sexual diversity that are more inclusive and concatenated with other determinants that permeate comprehensive health 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".