Advancing human rights, health equity, and equitable health policy with LGBTQ+ people: An American Academy of Nursing consensus paper
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health disparities among LGBTQ+ people arise from sociocultural contexts of gender oppression. Complex historical, legal, and policy landscapes perpetuate inequities through discriminatory legislation and policies. Intersections of ideology, theology, and politics converge to shape anti-LGBTQ+ initiatives that have detrimental impacts on human rights and health outcomes. This consensus statement recommends promoting inclusive laws and policies, expanding antidiscrimination protections, and amplifying awareness within nursing and other healthcare practitioner communities, particularly in the United States. By advocating for a human rights-based approach and leveraging international frameworks, such as the International Bill of Human Rights and Yogyakarta Principles, we seek to empower nurses and policy stakeholders to address systemic barriers and advance health equity, equitable health policy, and human rights with LGBTQ+ people globally. These recommendations affirm the Academy's position, align seamlessly with its stance against oppressive laws and policies, and reinforce its mission to influence policy for improved health and equity.
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 | 0.132 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.029 | 0.050 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".