MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121508019 · doi:10.1177/0164027514562650

Restricted Access

2014· article· en· W2121508019 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alisa Grigorovich

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch on Aging · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLesbianThematic analysisRationingHealth careQualitative researchPopulationNursingSexual orientationGerontologyMedicinePsychologyEconomic growthSociologyGender studiesSocial psychologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reports on the findings of a study that explored older lesbian and bisexual women's access to publicly funded home care in Ontario. Recent health reforms have increasingly shifted the bulk of care of individuals from health care institutions to private homes and communities. Although these reforms have had consequences for all individuals, they may be particularly problematic for this population of older adults who face added health risks and barriers. Sixteen women participated in a qualitative case study with semistructured interviews. Iterative thematic analysis was used to analyze the data along with the use of a feminist political economy framework. The analysis shows that older lesbian and bisexual women experience barriers to accessing needed care and lack additional supports with which to supplement publicly funded home care. This study deepens existing knowledge by demonstrating how chronic illness and sexual minority status can further exacerbate the consequences of rationing public care.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.250
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.7500.433

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 head0.371
GPT teacher head0.613
Teacher spread0.242 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations12
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch on AgingSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207