Challenges LGBTQ2SI+ folx face while undergoing fertility treatment when trying to conceive
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, LGBTQ2SI+ folx experience barriers stemming from stigma and discrimination when accessing health care. This scoping review using a queer methodology to examine peer-reviewed articles and grey literature between 2010 and 2020 pertaining to experiences of LGBTQ2SI+ folx in Canada which lead to barriers when accessing assisted reproductive technology (ART). In order to access care, LGBTQ2SI+ folx endure negative interactions with health care providers, have to hide their gender or sexuality to access care, are unable to use known donors, do not have access to racially diverse sperm, are required to undergo mandatory counseling in order to access donor eggs and sperm, have limited social support, face exorbitant out of pocket costs, and face heteronormative laws and regulations. To decrease barriers, more research, more education for health care providers on LGBTQ2SI+ issues, funding for ART by government medical plans, and the promotion of racially diverse eggs and sperm in Canada are needed.
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 | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".