They didn't break me, because I’m going to keep going: A participatory study exploring access to health and social services for women living on a low income in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Equitable access to health and social services is recognized as a fundamental right in Canada. Women living on a low income experience the harmful effects of structural inequalities when accessing health and social services. Some of those women belong to minority groups such as Indigenous, immigrants and refugees, LGTBQ2S, single mothers, older adults, and those living with chronic illnesses and disabilities. However, little we know about how gender and income as social determinants of health affect access to health and social services for women on a low income. Goals: Our purpose in this qualitative study was to explore how the SDH affect the experiences of Canadian women who live on a low income, with accessing health and social services. Methods: In keeping with a participatory research approach, we are partnering with a not-for-profit organization, and are using an art-based approach (photovoice), hermeneutic phenomenology, as well as one-to-one interviews to illuminate the experiences of women living on a low income. Results: Five women are participating. In our analysis to date we have found three themes: 1) I know what I'm feeling, I know what my body feels; 2) There’s a lack of empathy, lack of compassion; and 3) They didn't break me because I'm going to keep going. Conclusions: Although access to health and social services is considered a fundamental right for all Canadians; it is unfair and unjust how women in this study do not experience that right. This work aims to bring access issues to light and elevate the voices of women living on a low income to create sustainable solutions with them and other community members, including a more compassionate health system and inclusive society in Ontario, Canada.
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 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 | 0.013 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".