MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147324565 · doi:10.1177/1049732303013005002

Intrusion: The Central Problem for Family Health Promotion among Children and Single Mothers after Leaving an Abusive Partner

2003· article· en· W2147324565 on OpenAlexaff
Judith Wuest, Marilyn Ford‐Gilboe, Marilyn Merritt‐Gray, Hélène Berman

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Health Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVulnerability (computing)Health promotionPromotion (chess)IntrusionPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyGrounded theorySocial psychologyQualitative researchMedicineSociologyPublic healthNursingPolitical scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Like other single-parent families, those consisting of mothers and their children who leave abusive partners/fathers are broadly viewed a deficient, high-risk structures in which children are susceptible to multiple problems. The mechanisms of strength and vulnerability in these families are poorly understood, and, consequently, their health promotion processes remain virtually unexplored. In a feminist grounded theory study of health promotion processes of single-parent families after leaving abusive partners/fathers, the authors discovered intrusion to be the basic social problem as families strive to promote health in the aftermath of abuse. The authors discuss the complex nature of intrusion, demonstrating how health is socially determined, and the challenges of health promotion in terms of the issues and dilemmas faced by study families and consider implications for health promotion knowledge and practice.

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)0.006
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.007
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.254
GPT teacher head0.527
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations119
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQualitative Health ResearchSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207