Experiences with social support among older adult women participating in gay square-dancing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social support is important for health and well-being, and is associated with physical activity behaviour and positive experiences in physical activity contexts. Because of historical oppression of the LGBTQI2S community, opportunities for social inclusion and social support are important and may be fostered through participation in gay square dancing.The aim of this research was to understand the lived experiences of older adult female-identified participants in a gay square-dancing club, with attention to social support, social relationships, and social barriers. Fourteen self-identified female square dancers belonging to a gay square dance club participated. Most were white and all were over age 55. Participants self-identified as heterosexual (7), homosexual (3), pansexual (1), bisexual (1), and 2 did not identify with existing terminology. Semi-structured interviews were conducted during a gay square-dancing festival and thematically analyzed. Themes suggested participants experienced intentionally provided support which included both tangible (e.g. helping with transportation) and emotional support (e.g. offering words of encouragement). There was an emphasis on making connections and dancing with many people. First-time participants described overcoming shyness and feeling comfortable attending alone, which they noted was not always the case in heteronormative square dance groups. Perhaps novel to this context where touch is inherent to the activity, physical touch (e.g. hand holding, dance holds, hugging) was perceived as mostly supportive but at times was uncomfortable. Findings highlight the importance of exercise contexts with intentional acceptance of individuality, which can foster an inviting and supportive environment and contribute to positive experiences with participation.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".