MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3114566375 · doi:10.1177/0020731420981857

Toward an Intersectional Approach to Health Justice

2020· article· en· W3114566375 on OpenAlexaff
Arnel M. Borras

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Health Services · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInjusticeHealth equityMisrepresentationSociologyPublic healthPoliticsEconomic JusticeRedistribution (election)Political scienceHealth careMedicineLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite unprecedented global wealth creation, health inequity-the unjust health inequality between classes and groups among and within countries-persists, reviving the relevance of social justice as a lens to understand and as an instrument to intervene in these issues. However, the theoretical aspects and polysemous character of social justice as applied in the field of public health are often assumed rather than explicitly explained. An intersectional justice approach to understanding health inequality, inequity, and injustice might be useful. It argues that preexisting class-, race/ethnicity-, and gender-based health injustice and the socially differentiated impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic are shaped, interconnectedly, by economic maldistribution, cultural misrecognition, and political misrepresentation. Pursuing health justice requires analyses, strategies, and interventions that integrate the economic, cultural, and political spheres of redistribution, recognition, and representation, respectively. Such an intersectional approach to health justice is even more relevant and compelling in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. This article is broadly about class, race/ethnicity, and gender political economy of public health-but with a narrower focus on maldistribution, misrecognition, and misrepresentation, shaping social and health injustices.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.601
Threshold uncertainty score0.705

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.282
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 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

Citations33
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Health ServicesSame topicFood Security and Health in Diverse PopulationsFrench-language works237,207