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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".