MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386663067 · doi:10.54434/candj.17

Putting Risk Factors in Context: an Anti-Oppression Approach

2021· article· en· W4386663067 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Cyndi Gilbert, Arlie Millyard

Bibliographic record

VenueCAND Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicObesity and Health Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOppressionContext (archaeology)Psychological interventionRace (biology)Sexual orientationPsychologySocial determinants of healthHealth careSocial psychologyMedicineSociologyGender studiesPublic healthPolitical scienceNursingPsychiatryGeographyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Risk factors can be useful tools for assessing patients and choosing interventions. However, discussions of social determinants (e.g. race, gender, sex, and sexual orientation) can portray those social categories as non-modifiable and biologically determined, erase the profound physiological effects of oppression, and support negative stereotypes or associations between marginalized groups and disease. In this paper we provide context to three commonly discussed social determinants of health to help clinicians avoid perpetuating stereotypes, better understand the root causes of disease, and provide appropriate naturopathic care and guidance for risk prevention.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.152
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.343 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCAND JournalSame topicObesity and Health PracticesFrench-language works237,207