MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037022945 · doi:10.1080/19371918.2011.593468

Long-Term Care for Older Lesbian and Bisexual Women: An Analysis of Current Research and Policy

2013· review· en· W2037022945 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alisa Grigorovich

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Work in Public Health · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Policy and Reform Studies
Canadian institutionsWomen's and Gender Studies et Recherches FéministesYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLesbianDisadvantageTransgenderGender studiesHealth carePsychologyLong-term careGerontologySociologyPolitical scienceMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian health care system's delivery and policies are often based on a heterosexual nuclear family model. Long-term care (LTC) policy in particular is built on specific assumptions about women and caregiving. Current health care and LTC policies can thus disadvantage and marginalize women who do not fit such constructions, such as older lesbian and bisexual women. Drawing from literature on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender women's health, aging, and caregiving, this article uses a feminist political economy analysis to demonstrate that a gap exists in current research and policy with respect to the LTC needs of older lesbian and bisexual women.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.844
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.007
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.418
GPT teacher head0.590
Teacher spread0.172 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations10
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial Work in Public HealthSame topicSocial Policy and Reform StudiesFrench-language works237,207