Working Through Stigma: A Constructivist Grounded Theory of Delivering Health Services to Diverse 2SLGBTQ Populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research inadequately explores processes and factors influencing the delivery of health services to sexual and gender minorities in ways that equitably attend to the infinite diversity held by these groups. This study employed Intersectionality and Critical Theories to inform Constructivist Grounded Theory methods and methodology; social categories of identity were strategically adopted to explore domains of power operating across multiple forms of oppression, think through subjective realities, and generate a nuanced rendering of power relations influencing health service delivery to diverse 2SLGBTQ populations in a Canadian province. Semi-structured interviews were conducted and the co-constructed theory of Working Through Stigma, with three interrelated concepts, depending on context, resolving histories, and surviving the situation, was generated . The theory depicts the concerns of participants and what they do about power relations influencing health service delivery and broader social contexts. While the negative impacts of stigma were widely and diversely experienced by patients and providers, ways of working within power relations emerged that would be impossible if stigma was not present, highlighting opportunities to positively impact those from stigmatized groups. As such, Working Through Stigma is a theory that flouts the tradition of stigma research; it offers theoretical knowledge that can be used to work within power relations upholding stigma in ways that increase access to quality health services for those whose historical underservicing can be attributed to stigma. In doing so, the stigma script is flipped and strategies for working against practices and behaviours that uphold cultural supremacies may be realized.
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 | 0.027 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".