MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998270125 · doi:10.1300/j013v40n01_06

Gender-Biased Diagnosing of Women's Medical Complaints: Contributions of Feminist Thought, 1970–1995

2004· article· en· W1998270125 on OpenAlex
Shari Munch

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

VenueWomen & Health · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHistorical Psychiatry and Medical Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeminismGender studiesQuarter (Canadian coin)Health careGender biasMedical careMedical literaturePsychologySociologyMedicinePolitical scienceFamily medicineSocial psychologyHistoryLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the advent of second-wave feminism during the 1970s, a significant body of literature emerged describing sexist practices in women's health care. Gender-biased diagnosing-the notion that somatic complaints by female medical patients are more likely to be labeled by physicians as psychosomatic-became a concern that garnered considerable attention in Europe and the United States because of the increased health risks it posed for women. This article examines the impact of feminist knowledge on this topic during the quarter century spanning 1970-1995. Analysis of the literature reveals feminist perspectives played a critical role in uncovering and problematizing gender bias in women's health care.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.388
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