MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029933948 · doi:10.1080/07399332.2010.519838

Sex Is Not Enough: The Need for Gender-Based Analysis in Health Research

2011· article· en· W2029933948 on OpenAlexaff
Nadine Nowatzki, Karen R. Grant

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Care For Women International · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To gain a more detailed understanding of health care utilization patterns, researchers have begun to disaggregate administrative data by a number of important variables, including sex. Our purpose in this article is to confirm the need for sex-disaggregated data in health research, but also to argue that the further step of gender-based analysis is necessary. We focus on a number of conceptual and methodological issues surrounding sex-disaggregated administrative data, and we conclude that sex disaggregation alone is insufficient. Gender-sensitive indicators must be developed and used in order to understand the context of health differences and develop appropriate policies and programs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.447
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.430
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.553
Threshold uncertainty score0.681

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4470.430
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0060.020
Scholarly communication0.0120.025
Open science0.0040.008
Research integrity0.0050.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.362
GPT teacher head0.546
Teacher spread0.184 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreCommentary

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

Citations106
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Care For Women InternationalSame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207