MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995349713 · doi:10.1207/s15327655jchn1702_6

Health Promotion and Senior Women With Limited Incomes

2000· article· en· W1995349713 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Community Health Nursing · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPromotion (chess)NursingMedicineHealth promotionFamily medicineBusinessGerontologyPsychologyPolitical sciencePublic health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Health promotion is increasingly being recognized as making an important contribution to the well-being of Canada's seniors. Most research relating to this topic, however, has focused on middle-income senior men and women. An exploratory study using ethnographic methods was conducted to explore and describe the health promotion experience of senior women living on limited incomes. Interviews with a total of 11 urban senior women living on limited incomes were analyzed. A major finding of this study was that the women utilized a wide variety of "ways of living" that are presented in the model, Health Promotion as Self Nurturance. Health promotion was perceived to be influenced by living on a limited income by most participants; however, 3 of the participants believed that their health status and income level were unrelated. Findings are discussed and implications for community health nurses are offered.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.800
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.348 · 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