Women's Gendered Identities and the Restructuring of Rural Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Research conducted in rural Alberta from 200–2001 captured women's accounts of their lives after restructuring in the health and agriculture sectors during the 1990s. Thirty‐four public health nurses, home care nurses, and farm women from three Alberta health regions were interviewed individually and in focus groups which covered five Alberta health regions. The women reported that restructuring had affected their decisions, their organization of paid and unpaid work, and the quality of their lives. Rural women perceived themselves as caregivers and organizers in their homes and communities. As well, they saw themselves as key figures in the fight to save the farms and the communities in which they lived. While accepting the expectations of rural women, they also expressed frustration and anger over the endless and largely unrecognized, work that resulted. The conflicts between paid and unpaid work, and between the fight to preserve the well‐being of the community and their own well‐being, became particularly clear among the farm women who also worked as nurses. Their sense of themselves as farm women, nurses, and as good community members, led to decisions that in many cases affected their physical and mental health; but they knew that if they did not contribute, they risked losing the way of life they valued. While patriarchal power inherent in social structures has been well documented, we argue theoretical explanations that incorporate the power of agency to place women in situations where they have little choice in the reproduction of their own oppression have not been sufficiently recognized in the literature.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".