MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159995009 · doi:10.1080/07399330601003515

Is “Raging” Good for Health?: Older Women's Participation in the Raging Grannies

2006· article· en· W2159995009 on OpenAlexaff
Blair Wexler

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Care For Women International · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpowermentFocus groupContext (archaeology)PoliticsQualitative researchPsychologyGerontologySocial engagementSociologyGender studiesPolitical scienceMedicineSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We explore the meanings and potential health-related benefits of older women's participation in the Raging Grannies, a voluntary activist organization. The group's activities are focused on social and political protest while also challenging stereotypes about aging women. Drawing on qualitative interview and focus group data, we employed empowerment theory as a means to examine the ways in which participation in the Raging Grannies contributed to older women's personal empowerment. Results were constructed around four key themes: (1) personal and social factors influencing involvement in the Raging Grannies; (2) leisure as a context for "raging," (3) empowering processes within the Raging Grannies, and (4) empowering outcomes resulting from participation.

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 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)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.787
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.389 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations31
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Care For Women InternationalSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207