MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008457416 · doi:10.1080/07399330590933944

Public Participation for Women's Health: Strange Bedfellows or Partners in a Cause?

2005· article· en· W2008457416 on OpenAlexaffabout
Wilfreda E. Thurston, Ardene Robinson Vollman, Lynn M. Meadows, Erin Rutherford

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Care For Women International · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsHealth CanadaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral partnershipPublic healthHealth policyContext (archaeology)Political scienceCorporate governanceEquity (law)Economic growthPoliticsPublic participationHealth equityPublic relationsPublic administrationMedicineBusinessNursingGeographyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A major focus of health system reform in Canada has been the regionalization of health services administration. With a goal of bringing decision-making closer to the community, there has been a commitment to public participation in planning by some health authorities. Women, however, often feel that their participation is minimal or their needs are not addressed. During regionalization of the Alberta health system, the Calgary Health Region (CHR) negotiated an agreement with the Salvation Army to provide women's health services through the Grace Women's Health Centre, a major part of the region's women's health program. We present a case study exploring the process and final agreement and the impact of this agreement on women's participation in health policy development. The historical context and the nature and impact of the agreement are described and several participation strategies that occurred within the partnership are discussed. The development of a formal partnership agreement, a governance model, was a success for public participation in this case; however, the greatest success for women was maintenance of a political space in which women's health as a priority could be discussed in a context where the forces against gender equity talk are strong.

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 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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.594
Threshold uncertainty score0.780

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Care For Women InternationalSame topicGlobal Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207