Applying critical leadership to advance 2SLGBTQIA+ health equity: A complex adaptive systems approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health inequities are increasing in Canada and across the globe. They pose a substantial threat to the health and well-being of millions of people. Organizational leadership, if it is to effectively contribute to tackling these inequities, must become more systematically infused with competencies that address power and the structural determinants of health. Health equity contexts for 2SLGBTQIA+ (Two Spirit, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, Queer, Intersex, Asexual, and Plus) remain a neglected area of focus in organizational leadership. The goals of this article are to provide: (1) a concise description of critical perspectives and critical leadership studies, (2) describe the urgency of theoretical and applied leadership approaches that more fulsomely integrate critical perspectives, and (3) illustrate an integration of a complex adaptive systems approach to support critical perspectives in advancing health equity for 2SLGBTQIA+ 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 | 0.032 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".