Aplicación de la perspectiva de género en artículos publicados en cuatro revistas nacionales de salud, México, 2000-2003
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the application of gender perspective in public health papers in four journals published by the Mexican National Health Institutes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 999 papers published in the four journals between 2000 and 2003 was reviewed. Two levels of analysis were considered: (a) data presented by sex, providing description of differences between women and men, and (b) the analysis of these differences from gender perspective. RESULTS: One quarter (25.4%) of the articles described results by sex. The largest percentage was published in Salud Pública de México (48.8%) and the smallest in Revista de Investigación Clínica (16.1%). Gender perspective was used in only 4.2% of papers; of these, drug addictions, health behaviour and violence were the topics that occurred most frequently. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to assess the application of gender perspective in Mexican health articles. Similarly to other countries, a very small percentage of authors analyzed sex differences, and a smaller proportion applied gender perspective. Results demonstrate the importance of promoting interdisciplinary research that may promote the elucidation of health inequalities between men and women.
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 | 0.045 | 0.135 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".