MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141350083 · doi:10.1177/1527154415583123

A Critical Discourse Analysis of Provincial Policies Impacting Shelter Service Delivery to Women Exposed to Violence

2015· article· en· W2141350083 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Camille Burnett, Marilyn Ford‐Gilboe, Hélène Berman, Cathy Ward-Griffin, C. Nadine Wathen

Bibliographic record

VenuePolicy Politics & Nursing Practice · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersRegistered Nurses’ Foundation of OntarioWestern University of Health SciencesSigma Theta Tau InternationalPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Service delivery frameworkDiscourse analysisCritical discourse analysisPublic relationsThematic analysisPolicy analysisFocus groupDialecticService (business)SociologyQualitative researchPolitical sciencePublic administrationBusinessPoliticsSocial scienceGeographyMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Shelters for abused women function within a broad context that includes intersecting social structures, policies, and resources, which may constrain and limit the options available to abused women and tacitly reinforce the cycle of abuse. This feminist, qualitative study combined in-depth interviews and focus groups conducted with 37 staff and four executive directors from four shelters in Ontario, Canada, along with a critical discourse analysis of salient policy texts. Together, the interviews and critical discourse analysis formed an integrated analysis of the dialectic between policy as written and enacted. The study findings illuminate the complexity of the system and its impact on women, shelters, and the community and highlight how specific types of social policies and various social system subsystems and structures, and system configuration, shape the day to day reality of shelter service delivery and impact outcomes for abused women and their children. Collectively, these findings offer direction regarding where these policies could be improved and provide a basis for shelters, policy makers, advocates, and the community to strengthen current services and policies, potentially enhancing outcomes for 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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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 score0.608
Threshold uncertainty score0.779

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0280.025
Scholarly communication0.0100.005
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.396 · 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

Citations26
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolicy Politics & Nursing PracticeSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207