“I Want to Grow Older With Dignity”: Older LGBTQ+ Canadian Adults’ Perceptions and Experiences of Aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The number of older LGBTQ+ adults is growing worldwide. Yet few studies outside of the United States have examined their experiences of aging. Drawing on the Health Equity Promotion Model and contextualized in Canada's unique socio-political history, our study used multiple, in-depth, qualitative interviews to examine 30 older Canadian LGBTQ+ adults' (aged 65-83) perceptions and experiences of growing older. Our descriptive thematic analysis identified three overarching categories: "Losses," "gains," and "needs." Losses referred to the changes in the participants' health, autonomy, and relationships that had occurred with age. Gains entailed positive later life changes, including increased wisdom, flexibility, and social connections. Finally, needs referred to those things that the participants deemed essential for aging well, namely, inclusive health care, meaningful activities, and supportive networks. We discuss the policy and practice implications of our findings for the fostering of health, well-being, and social inclusion amongst this often-marginalized population.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".