Defining and characterizing the role of the liaison in supporting 2SLGBTQIA+ people to navigate health-service settings: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This scoping review seeks to identify what is known about the role of liaisons who support two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, intersex, and asexual (2SLGBTQIA+) people receiving care in health-service settings, and specifically how the 2SLGBTQIA+ liaison role is defined and characterized. INTRODUCTION: To mitigate the stigma and discrimination experienced by 2SLGBTQIA+ people in health-service settings, a 2SLBGTQIA+ liaison position was created at a Canadian hospital. A comprehensive understanding of the 2SLGBTQIA+ liaison role is integral to the implementation of 2SLGBTQIA+ liaison positions in health-service settings globally; however, a thorough understanding of the role remains unclear. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This scoping review will consider literature that discusses the role of liaisons supporting 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals in health-service settings. No limitations will be placed on publication date, age, geography, liaison position title, or the professional, disciplinary, or educational background of the liaison. METHODS: This review will follow the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Databases to be searched will include MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), APA PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), LGBTQ+ Source (EBSCOhost), Scopus, Web of Science, as well as ProQuest Dissertations and Theses for gray literature. Two independent reviewers will screen titles, abstracts, and full-text articles; discrepancies will be resolved by consensus or through a third reviewer. Data will be extracted using an extraction tool developed by the research team. Findings will be presented in tabular/diagram format along with a narrative summary to highlight key themes related to the review question. REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework osf.io/rkx6j.
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 | 0.151 | 0.139 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.008 |
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".