Are Age-Friendly Communities “Friendly” for All? Perspectives from LGBTQ2S+ Communities
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
Age-friendly initiatives have grown in popularity in their efforts to promote active aging among older adults in Canada and other countries worldwide. However, these initiatives often overlook underrepresented populations, such as lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, and two-spirit (LGBTQ2S+) older adults, who have unique social and historical contexts which impact their aging experiences. The study involved a survey and key-informant interviews with local leaders, volunteers, staff, and/or LGBTQ2S+ older adults involved in initiatives that were both age and LGBTQ2S+ friendly to explore what it means for a community to be age and LGBTQ2S+ friendly and learn what can further be done to promote these communities. Through a qualitative template analysis, our findings suggest that safety within the social environment should be at the forefront of age-friendly policy initiatives. Considerations and avenues to create this safety and an overall culture of acceptance for all older adults include recognizing generational differences among aging cohorts, increasing LGBTQ2S+ visibility and involvement and highlighting the importance of policy and cultural humility. These considerations and the voices of LGBTQ2S+ older adults need to be integrated into age-friendly community planning and policies to ensure they are inclusive and that all older adults feel safe and can thrive within their communities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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