Fear and loathing in New England: examining the health-care perspectives of homeless people in rural areas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little anthropological research has been conducted on the health care perspectives of homeless people in rural areas. The aim of the present study is to elicit health-care beliefs, and examine overall health experience among a sample of current or recently homeless people in rural New Hampshire. Thirteen qualitative interviews were conducted, 11 with single men. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed, and analyzed using thematic analysis. Despite a massive burden of disease and illness, almost all participants reported an abiding aversion to doctors, hospitals and professional health care. Participants reported numerous negative encounters with doctors and health care professionals, often of a demeaning and disparaging nature. Participants noted that these encounters resulted in frequent cases of misdiagnosis and iatrogenesis. In contrast, participants spoke more fondly of other social and voluntary services, for example homeless organizations. Like other rural New Englanders, participants made their own individual efforts to maintain and promote health, for example by pursuing hobbies or prayer. The findings are contextualized within literature suggesting that these perspectives are generally shared by other poor rural people. Consistent with this literature, the findings suggest that homelessness in rural areas is often temporary and episodic. As such, this paper brings into question the distinctiveness and overall utility of the concept: 'the rural homeless'. The key determinant of negative attitudes to health care may not be recent homelessness. It may be entrenched socio-economic marginalization, and the resultant social stigma, that are shared amongst the rural poor, regardless of their current housing status.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".