Bibliographic record
Abstract
Women are increasingly experiencing poverty in Canada (Townson, 2000). This study seeks to gain an understanding of how women experience an extreme form of poverty—homelessness—within Kitchener, a mid-sized city located within the Waterloo region in southern Ontario, and the relationship of this experience to health.\nEmploying social determinants of health (SDOH) theory, this study examines the relationship between homelessness in Kitchener and one focus group was held.\nThis study indicates that homelessness had an all-encompassing influence on women’s health. Women experienced both impeding and promoting factors influecing their access to housing, healthy food, employment, health care, income, and social support, all key social determinants of health. Also, this research suggests that there are four linked spheres in which the social determinants of health present themselves in the social environments of women who are homeless: social policy, community resources, living conditions, and social relationships. Also, it argues that a feminist orientation in conjunction with SDOH is needed in order to more fully understand why women who are homeless face forces detrimental to their health. This study also has practical implications, as recommendations are made that address changes needed in order to promote women’s health at the macro-level as well as community and individual levels.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".