Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter will provide an overview of the health care system in Canada and the degree to which lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBT) people are recognized therein. Utilizing a critical structural social work perspective, the internationally renowned health promotion, population health and the associated Sex and Gender-Based Analysis (SGBA) Canada employs as national health models will be excavated to reveal a non-commitment to the LGBT populations. The lack of LGBT presence at the infrastructural level symbolizes the lack of recognition extended to these communities. An illness-based focus on HIV/AIDS contradicts the population health approach ignoring broader LGBT health issues, needs and concerns. The ripple effect of this is the lack of LGBT-specific health policies, funding, programs and services. There has been a long history of programmatic funding that isn’t core leaving LGBT communities in a constant state of vulnerability. Specific to the Canadian social work discipline itself, there is an inconsistency of recognition of ‘sexual orientation’ within professional principles, ethics and standards of practice and complete absence of ‘gender identity’. The chapter will conclude by promoting the Social Determinants of Health as a model inclusive of LGBT people.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".