Developing Resilience: How Women Maintain Their Health in Northern Geographically Isolated Settings
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore how women maintain their health in northern geographically isolated settings, using a feminist grounded theory method. Twenty-five women of diverse backgrounds in northern British Columbia, Canada, engaged in qualitative interviews over a 2-year period to express perspectives about how the north affects their health and how they maintain their health in northern settings. Findings reveal that the women experienced vulnerability to physical health and safety risks, psychosocial health risks, and risks of inadequate health care. The women responded to these vulnerabilities by developing resilience through the strategies of becoming hardy, making the best of the north, and supplementing the north. These strategies, which reflect both individual and collective actions, were determined by the needs and interests of the women and their social and personal resources. The findings have implications for women's health research and health practices and policies in geographically isolated settings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it