MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2479834037 · doi:10.1111/nin.12148

Exploring the impact of gender inequities on the promotion of cardiovascular health of women in Pakistan

2016· article· en· W2479834037 on OpenAlexafffund
Rubina Barolia, Alexander M. Clark, Gina Higginbottom

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Inquiry · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta HospitalUniversity of Alberta
FundersInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsSocioeconomic statusAutonomyMedicineHealth promotionDiseaseGerontologyDouble burdenEnvironmental healthEthnic groupPsychologyPublic healthPolitical scienceObesityNursingPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cardiovascular disease exerts an enormous burden on women's health. The intake of a healthy diet may reduce this burden. However, social norms and economic constraints are often factors that restrain women from paying attention to their diet. Underpinned by critical realism, this study explores how gender/sex influences decision-making regarding food consumption among women of low socioeconomic status (SES). The study was carried out at two cardiac facilities in Karachi, Pakistan, on 24 participants (male and female from different ethnic backgrounds), who had received health education. Using an interpretive descriptive approach, the study identified major barriers to a healthy diet: proscribed gender roles and lack of women's autonomy, power, male domination, and abusive behaviours. Cardiovascular risk and disease outcomes for the Pakistani women of low SES are likely to further escalate if individual and structural barriers are not reduced using multifactorial approaches.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.232
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.155 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations17
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing InquirySame topicGlobal Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207