Safe, Seen, and Supported: Navigating Eating Disorders Recovery in the 2SLGBTQ+ Communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Our purpose was to explore the experiences of self-identifying Two-Spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (2SLGBTQ+) Canadians in treatments for their eating disorders (EDs). By knowing more about their experiences, we hoped to better understand how dietitians and ED service providers can better support 2SLGBTQ+ clients. Methods: Ten self-identifying 2SLGBTQ+ individuals reporting concerns regarding body image or eating patterns, as well as accessing support services or treatments, within Canada were recruited through social media platforms. Participants took part in semi-structured interviews. Data were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: Four themes are presented: (i) feelings of judgement and otherness, (ii) experiencing shame in EDs and 2SLGBTQ+ identity, (iii) perceiving a lack of understanding and knowledge, and (iv) sharing lived experiences with the care team. Conclusions: Increased focus on trauma-informed approaches to ED treatment in 2SLGBTQ+ populations are indicated so that 2SLGBTQ+ clients feel comfortable to share. Increased education in 2SLGBTQ+ terminology and gender expression is recommended for dietetic professionals. We also recommend increased recruitment efforts for more diverse care teams.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".