WOMEN-CENTRED CARE: WORKING COLLABORATIVELY TO DEVELOP GENDER INCLUSIVE HEALTH POLICY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We argue that policies for women-centred care ought to be developed to address the inadequacy of the current health system to recognize that women are affected differently by health policies and programs and that gender is a determinant of health; furthermore, such policies must be created with representatives from relevant health professional organizations so that the policies are translated and operationalized at the organizational and practice level. A collaborative research process, co-operative inquiry, was used to conduct the research. This process engages the participants in rigorous iterations of action and reflection. The result was a clear definition of women-centred care, a set of general guidelines for practice, and specific changes to existing organizational policies. The process and the product of the research built a bridge between existing macro government policies and the guidelines, standards, and ethical codes of the professional health associations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.162 | 0.122 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.030 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.046 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".