Women's Health Resources: Facilitating a Community of Care for Midlife Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".