Unpacking Assumptions About Inclusion in Community-Based Health Promotion: Perspectives of Women Living in Poverty
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
Community-based health promoters often aim to facilitate "inclusion" when working with marginalized women to address their exclusion and related health issues. Yet the notion of inclusion has not been critically interrogated within this field, resulting in the perpetuation of assumptions that oversimplify it. We provide qualitative evidence on inclusion as a health-promotion strategy from the perspectives of women living in poverty. We collected data with women engaged in a 6-year community-based health promotion and feminist participatory action research project. Participants' experiences illustrated that inclusion was a multidimensional process that involved a dynamic interplay between structural determinants and individual agency. The women named multiple elements of inclusion across psychosocial, relational, organizational, and participatory dimensions. This knowledge interrupts assumptions that inclusion is achievable and desirable for so-called recipients of such initiatives. We thus call for critical consideration of the complexities, limitations, and possibilities of facilitating inclusion as a health-promotion strategy.
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 | 0.142 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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