Gender, sexuality and the participatory dimensions of a comparative life history policy study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gender, sexuality and the participatory dimensions of a comparative life history policy study In this paper, I explore how a critical feminist lens was a crucial element in creating a participatory policy study which used a qualitative design and comparative life history methodology. This study focused on Canadian nurses' political practice related to advocacy for lesbian health. Findings show that the combination of the gender lens and life history approach offers potential to create knowledge in ways aligned with health-promoting and emancipatory outcomes. However, the nature of participation and interaction by researcher and participants is contexualized and contested given complex dynamics of power that shape all aspects of this doctoral study process. The critical feminist lens with its focus on reflexivity informed the content and process of knowledge production in this study and shaped key turning points: the ways in which this policy study was conceptualized, the choice of comparative life history methodology, ethical considerations, data collection and analysis and representation of findings. Life history is unlikely to be the methodology that first comes to mind when undertaking a policy study. Its historical roots are associated with biographical, oral history and narrative approaches, which typically aim to elicit understanding of lived experience. Yet, it was this very aspect, this focus on lived experience, which rendered life history methodology fitting as I contemplated how to examine the relationship between nurses and policy. I was interested in understanding nurses' political practice, how policy influenced nurses' capacity to advocate in their everyday lives, as well as nurses' impacts on policy processes and their larger social worlds.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".