MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983188201 · doi:10.1002/ajhb.20490

Women's midlife symptom-reporting in China: Cross-cultural analysis

2006· article· en· W1983188201 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Human Biology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Wellbeing Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPeking Union Medical College
KeywordsChinaHumDemographyMedicineEast AsiaHeadachesPopulationGerontologyPsychologyHistoryPsychiatrySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report draws on data from the author's China Study of Midlife Women (CSMW) to test the popular notion that East Asian women have a low level of midlife symptom reporting compared with North American women. Symptom-reporting frequencies from a general population sample of 156 Chinese women of age 45-55 in China are compared with rates from published studies on midlife women in Japan, Canada, and the U.S. While the Japanese women's rates of reporting 16 core symptoms are uniformly low, the Chinese women's frequencies range from low to moderate. Except on hot flashes and headaches, the Chinese women's symptom-reporting rates tend to be more similar to the North American than to the Japanese sample. This analysis demonstrates that women's midlife symptom reporting in China cannot be equated with findings on women in Japan. Sources should be more cautious in making generalizations about East Asian women in this regard.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.725

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.455 · 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