MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4380085337 · doi:10.32920/23409137

A Critical Ethnographic Inquiry Into Newcomer Women's Experiences With Perinatal Care During The Three-Month Health Insurance Waiting Period In Ontario

2023· preprint· en· W4380085337 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jessica Pimienta

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOppressionIntersectionalityEthnographyHealth careParticipant observationQualitative researchCritical ethnographyNursingGender studiesPeriod (music)Social isolationPsychologySociologyMedicinePolitical sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to critically examine the factors that shape newcomer women's experiences with perinatal care during the three-month health insurance waiting period in Ontario. This qualitative study was guided by a critical ethnographic method along with an intersectionality framework. I conducted participant observations as well as in depth individual interviews with four newcomer women and three perinatal healthcare providers. The findings showed that the following factors shape newcomer women’s experiences with perinatal care: social identity, migration, and the healthcare system. Social identities related to gender, race, and socio-economic status intersect to form a social location, which intersects with newcomer women's experiences of social isolation and exclusion. These experiences in turn intersect with Ontario’s healthcare system with its problematic perinatal services. Together, these factors intersect to form systems of oppression for newcomer women in the perinatal period. Implications for nursing education, practice, policy, and research are presented.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.378
Threshold uncertainty score0.761

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0210.014
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMigration, Health and Trauma→French-language works237,207→