Older LGBTQ+ Canadian adults' perceptions and experiences of dating and intimate partnerships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Romantic relationships are an important source of companionship, intimacy, and social support in later life. To date, few studies have explored how older adults who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and/or members of other gender or sexual minorities (LGBTQ+) perceive and experience dating and/or romantic partnerships. Moreover, the bulk of the extant research has been conducted in the United States, and little is known about older LGBTQ+ Canadians' perceptions and experiences of intimate relationships and their related sense of social inclusion, acceptance, and visibility. To address these gaps in the literature and drawing on queer theory, we conducted 113 hours of in-depth, semi-structured interviews with a diverse group of 30 LGBTQ+ Canadians aged 65 to 83 years (average age of 71). The data were analyzed using descriptive thematic analysis, resulting in the identification of two overarching themes. The first theme, “There have been a lot of changes”, encompassed the participants' accounts of how aging-related physical and health changes had impacted their sex lives and romantic relationship priorities. The second theme, “Coming home to an empty house is very, very difficult” referred to the participants' sense of vulnerability and isolation as they navigated the complexities of older LGBTQ+ intimate relationships. We discuss our findings in relation to the existing research as well as theorizing about queer temporalities, heterosexism, and the diversity and fluidity of sexual experiences in later life. Highlighting the unique needs of older LGBTQ+ persons, we consider the implications of our findings for health and social service professionals. • Multiple, in-depth interviews with 30 LGBTQ+ older Canadian adults, aged 65 to 83. • Participants valued the companionship and intimacy of romantic LGBTQ+ relationships. • Aging-related health and physical changes had impacted their intimate partnerships. • Vulnerabilities amplified by their ages, gender identities, and sexual orientations. • Findings highlight the unique health and social care needs of older LGBTQ+ adults.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".