MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020354084 · doi:10.1080/01459740802017413

Who's Judging the Quality of Care? Indigenous Maya and the Problem of “Not Being Attended”

2008· article· en· W2020354084 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Anthropology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousSAFERQuality (philosophy)Context (archaeology)AttendanceNursingSet (abstract data type)PsychologyMedicinePublic relationsPolitical scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In developing countries, lack of trust in the quality of care provided is often cited as a major factor promoting reluctance to seek biomedical help for obstetric emergencies. This article draws on fieldwork among Mayan informants in Sololá, Guatemala, to explore poor perceptions of the quality of care received when seeking obstetric care in the hospital. Using data collected over two years, I set out to understand why interviewees repeatedly complain that hospital staff "do not attend to you." I maintain that the powerlessness of patients to influence the treatment they receive further reduces their trust in the quality of care delivered, ultimately negatively impacting the decision to seek obstetric care. Finally, I argue for the importance of recognizing the influence of the wider historical and social context in creating the dynamics of this interaction. The implications of this research in defining the quality of care and skilled attendance within the quest to make pregnancy safer are discussed.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.321 · 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