Invisible women? The importance of gender in lay beliefs about heart problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coronary heart disease (CHD) accounts for over a quarter of deaths in Britain, yet few qualitative studies have explored beliefs about ‘heart problems’ in the general population. A previous study of lay beliefs about coronary candidacy (or ‘the kind of person who gets heart trouble’) paid little attention to gender. However, semi‐structured interviews with 61 men and women reveal that gender plays a vital role in lay perceptions. Respondents’ accounts of people who were likely ‘candidates’ for heart problems all centred on men. More surprisingly, their accounts of unlikely candidates also focused exclusively on men. Only when specifically asked about relatives, did respondents discuss women with heart problems. While accounts of male ‘victims’ focused on sudden, fatal heart attacks, accounts of women usually concentrated on long‐term CHD morbidity. We argue that CHD continues to be perceived as a male disease and that women remain ‘invisible’ in discourses about heart disease.
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 | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".