MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102243742 · doi:10.1177/104973201129119244

Health Promotion and Preventive Measures: Interpreting Messages at Midlife

2001· article· en· W2102243742 on OpenAlexaff
Lynn M. Meadows, Wilfreda E. Thurston, Carol Berenson

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Health Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicObesity and Health Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalience (neuroscience)Health careHealth promotionNegotiationPsychologyRealmInclusion (mineral)GerontologyPublic relationsNursingSocial psychologyMedicinePublic healthSociologyPolitical scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, the authors provide important insight into the cultural messages that midlife women receive about preventive health care. Data were collected from 24 rural women as part of an ongoing project on midlife women's health. Kleinman's model of the popular and professional health care sectors was used to examine the data. There is clear evidence of clashes between the orientations and expectations of these sectors. Women's experiences reveal some consistent themes that contextualize their preventive health pursuits: time constraints, claims for expert knowledge, salience of family history, and the inclusion of nonallopathic resources as part of the professional realm. At the macrolevel, messages regarding women's responsibility for their health are ubiquitous. At the microlevel, women must negotiate among competing messages and resources and a health care system that often confounds their efforts. These contradictions must be addressed before there are long-term effects on the health of midlife 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.632
GPT teacher head0.699
Teacher spread0.067 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQualitative Health ResearchSame topicObesity and Health PracticesFrench-language works237,207