Exploring Polysexual Experiences within Mental Healthcare and the Negotiation of In/Visibility: A Qualitative Arts-Based Inquiry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contemporary research has found that polysexual people (who are sexually and/or romantically attracted to multiple genders) report poorer mental health when compared to monosexual people (Arnett, Frantell, Miles, & Fry, 2019; Bostwick, Boyd, Hughes, & McCabe, 2010; Brennan, Ross, Dobinson, Veldhuizen, & Steele, 2010; Flanders, Gos, Dobinson, & Logie, 2015; Steele, Ross, Dobinson, Veldhuizen, & Tinmouth, 2009). Furthermore, data from the 2003 and 2005 Canadian Community Health Surveys found that, “Bisexuals were more likely to report unmet [physical and mental] health care needs, compared with heterosexual Canadians” (Tjepkema, 2008, p. 62). Thus, this study explored the research question: “How do polysexual identified individuals wish to be seen, understood, and/or engaged within the specific context of mental healthcare?” The framework for this study was based on Daley’s (2013) theory of \n“negotiating in/visibility” in psychiatric service spaces. In the current study, six people participated in a semi-structured interview and four participants additionally completed a reflexive photography exercise (which included photographs and text). All mediums of data were brought together to discuss the following four themes: intersectionality; relevance; physical, online and community presence; and resistance. Findings revealed (respectively) that polysexual people wish to be seen as intersectional bodies, for their sexuality to be understood through their own perspectives as it relates (or not) to mental healthcare, to be engaged with through queer politics, and for therapeutic services to not be yet another space where they must resist oppression. While these results are not revolutionary by any means, they convey – often unmet – needs of polysexual people, from which service providers can reflect upon their own practice.
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 | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".