MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391402269 · doi:10.1080/00083968.2023.2289078

Traditional medicine and religious approaches in adapting to maternal and infant health threats among Zimbabwean migrant women in Giyani, South Africa

2024· article· en· W4391402269 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tamuka Chekero

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of African Studies / Revue canadienne des études africaines · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHIV/AIDS Impact and Responses
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Research Foundation
KeywordsSocioeconomicsEnvironmental healthGender studiesGeographyMedicineTraditional medicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study illustrates how the Karanga, a subset of Shona-speaking Zimbabwean migrant women resident in Giyani, South Africa, use aspects of traditional medical and religious practices to protect their health and the lives of their children. It investigates the creative strategies employed by these women to negotiate the effects of their exclusion from South African public healthcare systems. The study draws on key informant interviews, unstructured interviews and life histories. Findings indicate that migrant women and their children are vulnerable to a wide range of health threats. Lack of access to public health services worsens their vulnerability. However, they also demonstrate creativity and agency in devising strategies for mitigating health risks. As coping strategies, migrant women in Giyani use both traditional medical and spiritual faith-healing approaches. Furthermore, how they detect, diagnose, and define illness or lack of health influences their mode of healthcare choice within the limited options available.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.247
Teacher spread0.137 · 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of African Studies / Revue canadienne des études africainesSame topicHIV/AIDS Impact and ResponsesFrench-language works237,207