Our Lives as Women: An Analytical Framework of What Makes Q'eqchi' Women Sick
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The global pattern of women suffering from worse health than men, based on cultural, economic, and biological factors, was found in a small group of Q’eqchi’ women in the Toledo district of Belize. This research follows the health narratives of 20 Q’eqchi’ women to determine what they believe causes their poor health. Through in-depth personal interviews Q’eqchi’ women shared that they suffer from backaches, headaches, pain in their bones, and heavy bleeding. Further, the women also reported ‘thinking too much’ as a factor in their health caused by their reproductive roles. Through thematic analysis and an extensive review of varied literature, this research found that the colonization-rooted Latin gender roles of machismo and marianismo work to sustain Q’eqchi’ women to the domestic sphere. Based on the fact that most Q’eqchi’ women are mothers and wives, these women are stripped of opportunities to obtain education and gain employment, leading to high stress levels and a dependency on their partners for socioeconomic support. Moreover, Q’eqchi’ women’s domestic responsibilities involved arduous physical labour with little rest or help from their male spouses. This labour, combined with the pressures and responsibilities associated with their sex, results in their somatic and psychosomatic expressions of sickness. The research presented in this paper underpins the significance of women’s sex and cultural systems when analyzing global health outcomes. More nuanced considerations of cultural structures, like those mentioned by Q’eqchi’ women, need to be prioritized by policymakers and global health initiatives internationally to better support women’s health.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.063 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".