MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409835177 · doi:10.1080/23293691.2025.2491005

“We Talk About Penises and Vaginas, But We Don’t Talk About PMS”: Canadian Social Workers’ Knowledge of Premenstrual Symptoms and Their Assessment Practices with Mothers

2025· article· en· W4409835177 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lynn Barry, Leslie M. Tutty

Bibliographic record

VenueWomen s Reproductive Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMenstrual Health and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySocial psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given the significant role of mothering for women of childbearing age, menstrual disorders should be an important consideration in social work assessments. As part of a larger quantitative study of 521 Canadian social workers, 16 were interviewed about their knowledge of PMS/PMDD. Four major themes emerged: 1) Personal experiences with PMS/PMDD; 2) Although highly educated, the social workers had little knowledge of PMS/PMDD, even though most had symptoms themselves; 3) None recalled clients disclosing PMS/PMDD to them, and; 4) Although many “theoretically” supported the inclusion of PMS/ PMDD in mothering assessments, these social workers did not ask mothers about their experiences.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.440
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.324 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWomen s Reproductive HealthSame topicMenstrual Health and DisordersFrench-language works237,207