Queer food futures: recommendations for inclusive support systems for LGBTQ+ communities affected by food insecurity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and other sexually and gender diverse (LGBTQ+) communities experience higher rates of food insecurity than their heterosexual and/or cisgender peers. LGBTQ+ people also face unique barriers to accessing healthy and nutritious food. This qualitative study aimed to examine the experiences of LGBTQ+ individuals in Nova Scotia who face food insecurity, focusing on their interactions with food support services such as food banks, meal programs, and shelters. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 self-identifying LGBTQ+ people and analyzed using Foucauldian discourse analysis. Two discursive constructions are reported. The first is discourses of safety and dignity, highlighting wariness toward religious institutions, apprehensions about data collection by food banks, and a perceived lack of staff and volunteer knowledge regarding LGBTQ+ individuals. The second discursive construction envisions queer futures by examining past experiences to inform innovative operational strategies for food support services. The insights gained are intended to guide the development of policies and practices that enhance accessibility, safety, and structural competence in these support services. Key recommendations are provided to transform food support services to more inclusive to LGBTQ+ 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".