Public Participation for Women's Health: Strange Bedfellows or Partners in a Cause?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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".