“Multiple margins” (being older, a woman, or a visible minority) constrained older women’s access to Canadian health care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kinch JL, Jakubec S. Out of the multiple margins: older women managing their health care. Can J Nurs Res 2004;36:90–108.[OpenUrl][1][PubMed][2] Q What are older women’s experiences with the Canadian healthcare system? How do they manage their health and access health care? A feminist phenomenological study. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 32 Canadian women who were 65–83 years of age. 14 were Caucasian, 11 Ismaili, 3 Aboriginal, and 4 Japanese. Participants were interviewed (for 1.5 to 2.5 h) in 5 small groups of 3–11 women. A follow up interview was held with 5 members of 1 group. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and analysed for emergent themes. 4 themes were identified within and across the interviews. Femininity, relationships, and means of support. The women were intrigued by the concept of sharing their stories in an organised discussion (eg, “We always get together and we sit around and talk, but never discussing the …the personal things”). Examples of “personal” matters included the loneliness they had endured after spending years in various relationships in their working and personal lives. They made a connection between extreme loneliness and … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DCanadian%2BJournal%2Bof%2BNursing%2BResearch%26rft.stitle%253DCan%2BJ%2BNurs%2BRes%26rft.aulast%253DKinch%26rft.auinit1%253DJ.%2BL.%26rft.volume%253D36%26rft.issue%253D4%26rft.spage%253D90%26rft.epage%253D108%26rft.atitle%253DOut%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bmultiple%2Bmargins%253A%2Bolder%2Bwomen%2Bmanaging%2Btheir%2Bhealth%2Bcare.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F15739939%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=15739939&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F8%2F4%2F128.atom
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".