MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130798612 · doi:10.1177/0891243206286939

Poor Women's Discourses of Legitimacy, Poverty, and Health

2006· article· en· W2130798612 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueGender & Society · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCommunity Health and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegitimacyPovertyCollectivismMeaning (existential)SociologyOddsGender studiesInterpretation (philosophy)Social psychologyIndividualismPolitical sciencePsychologyPoliticsLawMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we sought a better understanding of how poor women made meaning of their poverty and health. Twenty research participants used varied, multiple, and at times contradictory discourses that shaped their identities as both legitimate and powerful and illegitimate and powerless. We identified four discourses in the women's talk—illegitimate dependencies, legitimate dependencies, overwhelming odds, and critique and collectivism. These four discourses revealed complexes of meanings and networks of interpretation that subverted, accommodated, and reinterpreted dominant discourses of poverty and health. This examination is relevant for feminist researchers attempting to understand the impact of dominant discourses in the lives of socially marginalized women who continually struggle to establish and strengthen claims to legitimacy and moral worth.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.611
Threshold uncertainty score0.724

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.335 · 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