SOGIE-diverse inclusivity: An analysis of 2SLGBTQ+ representation on Ontario, Canada public health unit websites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The objectives of this study were to: 1) examine how often sexual orientation, gender identity and expression (SOGIE)-diverse terms appeared on websites of public health units (PHUs) in Ontario, Canada, and 2) determine the contexts within which these terms appeared on these PHU websites. Study design: This study employed a summative content analysis of 34 Ontario PHU websites. Methods: The study involved compiling a list of SOGIE-diverse terms, searched PHU websites using their integrated search systems, and retrieved webpages where relevant search terms were found. The data analysis included enumerating how often the SOGIE-diverse terms appeared and summarizing the contexts within which the terminology appeared on the 34 PHU websites. Results: Across these websites, terms commonly found were variations of "LGBT," "sexual/sexuality," and identity terms, including "bisexual," "gay," "queer," and "lesbian." SOGIE-diverse communities were reflected in two broad categories: sexual health and infectious diseases; and mental health, SOGIE-diversity discrimination, and resources. Conclusions: In this website review, most PHUs offer some relevant information about and for SDCs; however, they also lacked in specific, SOGIE-relevant ways. While sexual health and mental health are pertinent concerns, this myopic view of relevant health concerns for SOGIE-diverse communities excludes holistic health conceptualizations and lacks nuanced understanding of SDCs' rich lived experiences. The implications of this work are to ensure that PHUs have mutual understanding of SOGIE-diversity related terms, and how they represent SDCs via their websites and the information and services offered for these communities. Ontario PHUs, especially through public-facing platforms such as websites, have a unique opportunity to educate both SDCs and the broader public. Clear, consistent, and collaborative communication can minimize inequitable health outcomes for these communities.
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 | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".