Social Exclusion and Resilience as Frameworks of Stress and Coping among Selected Non-dominant Groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the growth of stress and coping research and its implications for health policy and practice, one major gap in this research area is that its conceptualizations and measurements are mostly ethnocentric, and give limited attention to the diversity of our society. As a step towards bridging this gap, the purpose of the present study was to reveal lay people's views and perspectives on lived experiences and the meanings of stress and coping with stress among selected non-dominant groups of individuals (n = 78) in a Western Canadian city. The frameworks of social exclusion and resilience were used conceptually and analytically to ground the examination and synthesize findings about stress and coping across three target groups: Aboriginal individuals with diabetes, individuals with disabilities, and gays and lesbians. As qualitative methods, focus groups were employed as the data collection technique, and phenomenology as an analytic framework. Overall, findings highlighted the interconnected nature of various aspects of social exclusion (for example, economic exclusion, institutional exclusion, cultural exclusion) that reflect the stressful lives of participants unique to their disadvantaged and vulnerable positions in society, mostly due to the prevalence of poverty, poor living conditions, discrimination and oppression, as well as unbalanced/unequal power relations in society. The findings also suggest that human strengths and resilience are core elements of stress-coping which encompass a wide range of valued meanings such as social or collective, spiritual, cultural, attitudinal and transformative/developmental. These findings imply the need for a more culturally or sub-culturally appropriate approach to health policies and practices in order to support people (particularly non-dominant and often marginalized groups) in effectively addressing life adversities/stresses and enabling proactive and culturally relevant coping.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".