MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049896164 · doi:10.1177/0363199008323358

Flax Seed, Goose Grease, and Gun Powder: Medical Practices By Women Homesteaders in Saskatchewan (1882-1914)

2008· article· en· W2049896164 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sandra Rollings-Magnusson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family History · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsMacEwan University
FundersUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsScarcityFellAgricultureHealth careSubsistence agricultureWork (physics)Economic growthPoliticsSocioeconomicsPolitical scienceGeographyBusinessSociologyEconomicsEngineeringLawArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Various studies conducted over the past three decades have highlighted the social, political, and economic impact that women homesteaders had on the western prairie region. Their involvement on the family homestead, whether taking part in subsistence and domestic chores or as workers in the fields, was a necessary aspect of the development and success of family farming and an agriculture-based economy in Western Canada. This paper reveals details of another aspect of family labor that often fell on the shoulders of women, that is, the provision of medical care needed to ensure the health of themselves, their spouses, and their children. Given the labor-intensive nature of the frontier lifestyle, the associated physical hazards, the number of disease-susceptible children in the region, and the scarcity of medical institutions and personnel, women were often called upon by their families and neighbors to deal with outbreaks of disease, injuries, and health crises. Using survey data collected by the Saskatchewan Archives Board in 1955 to illustrate the nature of the work performed, this paper argues that women's health care labor efforts were vital to the preservation of homesteading families in the prairie region.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.282
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.230 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Family HistorySame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207