MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412635984 · doi:10.18192/aporia.v17i2.7272

A Case for a Critical Examination of Diagnostic Delays Among Women

2025· article· en· W4412635984 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Kelly Gregory, Cheryl Pritlove, Ross Upshur, Pia Kontos

Bibliographic record

VenueAporia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAging and Gerontology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work offers a critical examination of research which investigates the reasons behind diagnostic delays among women, to recognize that the phenomenon has been insufficiently understood and poorly theorized. We then call for a deeper understanding of women’s embodied lived experience of diagnostic delays, as well as of the social and political contexts that are shaping and reproducing these delays. To address this task, we end by describing and proposing the theoretical engagement of critical phenomenology, for its capacity to consider the full complexity of this wicked and enduring problem.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.060
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.060
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0150.048
Scholarly communication0.0090.017
Open science0.0020.012
Research integrity0.0080.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.367 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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 venueAporiaSame topicAging and Gerontology ResearchFrench-language works237,207