"There's just nothing out there for people like us": The Experiences of 2SLGBTQ+ Carer-Employees in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis extends prior research on LGBT caregivers and carer-employees by employing a mixed-methods approach to investigate the intersecting factors of identity, employment type, and geographical location on the experiences of Two-Spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (2SLGBTQ+) caregivers in Canada. These caregivers are broadly absent from both the carer-employee and LGBT caregiving literature, and this dissertation offers an initial attempt to correct this. It begins with a quantitative study involving 2SLGBTQ+ carer-employees, assessing how their identity and experiences of discrimination influence their quality of life, work life, and willingness to seek workplace accommodations for caregiving responsibilities. Subsequently, a qualitative component delves into how employment type shapes these experiences, with a particular focus on how insecure customer service workers and those employed in unionized pink-collar work navigate work-care conflicts. This section also examines the impact of non-traditional caregiving dynamics on the ability of these caregivers to navigate such conflicts. Lastly, it explores how past and current experiences of discrimination, non-conventional relationships, and geographical location affect the capacity of 2SLGBTQ+ carer-employees to interact with healthcare providers and advocate for their care recipients. This research offers a substantial contribution by bringing to the forefront a hitherto unaddressed population. The existing body of literature on carer-employees has overlooked the specific challenges faced by 2SLGBTQ+ carer-employees, and the LGBT caregiving literature has similarly overlooked the role of employment in shaping the experiences of these caregivers. Furthermore, it underscores the significance of geographical location for 2SLGBTQ+ caregivers in rural and remote areas and highlights the experiences of midlife and younger caregivers, particularly those providing care for individuals experiencing severe mental illness. It concludes with discussions of the policy implications of this research.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".