Navigating Unique Intersectional Experiences: <scp>LGBTQ</scp>+ Community Organisations Addressing Individuals With Intellectual Disabilities' Needs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This exploratory study aimed to enhance the understanding of practitioners' experiences within LGBTQ+ community organisations when providing interventions for LGBTQ+ individuals with intellectual disabilities. Three specific objectives were outlined: to document the situations and challenges encountered by practitioners; to identify perceived needs among LGBTQ+ individuals with intellectual disabilities and to elicit their suggestions for recommendations to improve services. METHOD: A qualitative approach, involving in-depth interviews with 12 Québec-based LGBTQ+ community practitioners, underwent content analysis. RESULTS: Findings were organised around three themes: perceived support needs of LGBTQ+ people with intellectual disabilities; challenges experienced in intervention and recommendations to improve services. Findings reveal that practitioners frequently face significant challenges when supporting LGBTQ+ individuals with intellectual disabilities, who often struggle with multiple daily challenges and insufficient support. CONCLUSIONS: The study highlights the need to empower LGBTQ+ organisations with essential skills and foster partnerships with public service staff to ensure a more inclusive, intersectional approach.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".