MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W170306646 · doi:10.1177/175797590601300105

Women's Health Resources: Facilitating a Community of Care for Midlife Women

2006· article· en· W170306646 on OpenAlex
Lynn M. Meadows, Wilfreda E. Thurston, Darryl Quantz, Mary Bobey

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePromotion & Education · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpowermentHealth careNursingMedicineReproductive healthPsychologyGerontologyPopulationEnvironmental healthPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since 1981 research has explored the role of women's health centres in providing health information and education to women in a non-traditional setting. These settings have been designed to provide more appropriate, and often more comprehensive, care by responding to the specific health issues and needs of women across the age continuum. The type of care and resources provided by these centres make a significant contribution to women's capacity for participation in decisions and action around their own, health. This article examines the service delivery and perceived roles of one such centre, the Women's Health Resources (WHR) centre in Calgary, Canada. Data for this paper were extracted from WHR evaluation forms for 199 midlife women seeking individual consultation, as well as personal interviews that were conducted with four female staff members. Clients of the WHR cited numerous reasons for seeking service at the centre, the most common being for emotional health care, nutritional consultation or more comprehensive information on a specific illness. Three major components of service provision at the centre were identified: information, psychological care and complementarity of services. Women used the information they gained from WHR services to aid in health decision-making and as a resource for empowerment in being partners in their own health. Clients noted that the WHR was a valuable source of additional information beyond what their own family physician and/or specialist were able to provide. The feminist and woman-centred care at WHR, in conjunction with the emphasis on education, offers an invaluable source of information and services for women. Through the shared experiences of both the clients and staff of this centre, this article provides an outline of how such services are perceived and utilized.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.362
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.363 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it