Sexual healthcare to meet the needs of sexuality and gender diverse aboriginal young people: imagined possibilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Australia, Aboriginal young people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer or otherwise sexuality and gender diverse (LGBTQ+) are recognised within several overlapping priority populations in state and federal sexually transmissible infection and HIV strategies. However, limited research has documented their unique sexual health experiences, needs and preferences. In this qualitative study, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 LGBTQ+ Aboriginal young people aged 16-24 years in New South Wales. Interviews incorporated questions about service access, positive and negative experiences and self-determined healthcare priorities. We conducted a strengths-based thematic analysis to understand the issues of greatest importance in sexual healthcare for participants. Using the framework of 'imaginaries', we explored how participants imagined sexual healthcare that would meet their individual and cultural needs. The dominant imaginary centred on respect, representation and the as-yet-unrealised possibility of sexual healthcare designed by and for people who shared the intersection of Aboriginal and LGBTQ+ experience. We identified individual-level, service-level and societal-level factors influencing this imaginary, including relationships, accessibility and experiences of racism. Analysing the imaginaries constructed by LGBTQ+ Aboriginal young people of empowering, culturally safe sexual healthcare that is 'for them' provides insight into potential service design to improve sexual health outcomes for this 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".