Health and Well-Being of Farm Women: Contradictory Roles in the Contemporary Economy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To document the roles of farm women in the contemporary farm economy, their physical health and psychological well-being, and their interaction with and evaluation of the health care system, a multi-stage study employing both quantitative and qualitative research strategies was implemented. A total of 717 Canadian farm women in 20 rural Saskatchewan municipalities returned a 20-page objective questionnaire that focused on: (1) health care, (2) health status, (3) social support, (4) well-being, (5) lifestyle and activities, (6) stress, (7) work, (8) male and female roles, (9) demographics, and (10) farm issues. Subsequently, 20 qualitative interviews were conducted to explore in-depth the findings of the survey. Results document long hours of work, on and off the farm, that often went unacknowledged; pressure to assume the role of a "traditional farm wife," expectations they often felt they had difficulty living up to; and high levels of stress in response to economic and family pressures. Although rating the availability and quality of health care as "fair to good," the farm women commented on the lack of access to medical and counseling services, and a perceived lack of understanding by policymakers and professionals. Integrated health and educational service centers, increased use of nurse practitioners, and establishment of mobile health services are recommended policy initiatives.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".