Women in decision making: does it make a difference? : Case studies of Newfoundland and Labrador Heart Health Project sites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The overall goal was to explore whether the policies and programs developed by women decision makers in three community-based heart health projects were gender sensitive. The research objectives were (1) to determine whether the fact that women comprised the majority of decision makers in three of the community-based projects funded under the Newfoundland and Labrador Heart Health Project allowed for development of programs and policies that were gender sensitive; and (2) to identify factors that contributed to the development of gender sensitive policies and programs in the three community-based projects. Case studies were done on three community-based heart health projects in the Newfoundland and Labrador Heart health Project. These community-based projects produced some gender sensitive programs and policies. Gender sensitive programming was more likely to be developed when women learned about cardiovascular disease through a family history, became involved in the heart health project with a desire to improve their family's or their own health, the heart health committee was a cohesive group, and decision makers learned about the differences in women's and men's experience of CVD through their professional education. Even though some gender sensitive programming was delivered, decision makers had little understanding of why women but not men participated in their activities. If health promotion activities are to benefit both women and men then organizers will have to receive education on the different needs of men and women. This education is often called gender sensitive training. Organizations dominated by men will need to be encouraged to become involved in health promotion programs if men are to benefit.
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 | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".