Access to health and social services by women living on a low income in Canada: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review is to map the current evidence about access to health and social services for women living on a low income in Canada. INTRODUCTION: Women, especially those living on a low income, are disproportionately likely to suffer inequities in access to health and social services. There is insufficient understanding of how the interaction of socioeconomic factors and gender can affect women's access to these services. This review will provide an initial picture of what exists in the literature about access to health and social services for women living on a low income in Canada. The results of this scoping review may be used to inform subsequent qualitative and quantitative reviews on this subject. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Literature addressing access to health and social services by women who are 18 years or older and living on a low income in Canada will be considered for inclusion. Health services will include health promotion and disease prevention; treatment of medical conditions; and rehabilitation, palliative, and end-of-life care. Social services are non-medical services designed to help members of a society who may need extra support or are considered to have social or behavioral risk factors. METHODS: We will search relevant electronic databases (eg, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO) and gray literature. The review will include all study designs, including qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods methodologies (excluding economic analyses or clinical practice guideline development documents). Two reviewers will test the screening criteria and data extraction protocol.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".