Embodied Minds, Restless Spirits: Mid-Life Rural Women Speak of Their Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This manuscript explores mid-life women's views of corporeality and the links that these have to their health. Using ethnographic interview techniques, community based interviewers talked with 24 women from rural settings. Our findings suggest that mid-life women have an embodied view of their minds and spirits, and that dualism is generally reserved for thinking about and interacting with the biomedical system. They have a sense of themselves as unique individuals who have a large role in caregiving, multiple other roles, and have luck but also agency in and control of their health and well-being. Motion was a strong theme throughout the interviews. Women embraced this mobility as a characteristic of their well-being as they coped with multiple changes associated with mid-life. In contrast to what some philosophers maintain, women seem to partner both corporeal changes and metaphor. While the sample was limited in scope, the findings support the importance to women's health of understanding the intersections between compositional and contextual variables in various settings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".