MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116362239 · doi:10.1177/0193945905277157

Enhancing Research With Migrant Women Through Focus Groups

2005· article· en· W2116362239 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueWestern Journal of Nursing Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFocus groupInclusion (mineral)Context (archaeology)Ethnic groupReimbursementPsychologyMedical educationMedicineSocial psychologySociologyHealth carePolitical scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent systematic reviews of measurement strategies have identified a striking lack of data to support the validity of most questionnaires used with multiethnic, migrant populations. In the context of two ongoing research studies examining the reproductive health needs of migrant women in Canada, cultural validation was required for proposed study questionnaires and protocols in a total of 13 languages. Multilingual, multiethnic women with various migrant profiles were recruited from the community to review research materials in a series of focus groups. Recommendations by these women were made in relation to consent and interpretation procedures, development of trust in research, home visits after birth, approaches to sensitive topics, inclusion of discrimination as a research variable, and reimbursement of participants. Preliminary work applying focus-group methods to mixed ethno-cultural groups yielded valuable information on appropriateness of planned research.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.350
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.169
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.326 · 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