MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7051864477

PRIMARY HEALTH CARE SERVICE USE AMONG WOMEN WHO HAVE RECENTLY LEFT AN ABUSIVE PARTNER: INCOME AND RACIALIZATION, UNMET NEED, FIT OF SERVICE, AND HEALTH

2011· article· en· W7051864477 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship@Western (Western University) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthHealth careAbusive relationshipDomestic violenceSuicide preventionOccupational safety and healthPrimary carePoison controlPhysical abuse
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Primary health care (PHC) services can improve the health of women who have recently left an abusive partner. Yet, women’s ability to access and benefit from PHC services may be shaped by intersecting social locations, particularly income level and racialization. The purpose of this study was to examine whether differences in income and racialization, among women who had recently left an abusive partner, were associated with differences in PHC unmet need and fit of services, as well as to mental and physical health. A quantitative secondary analysis of data from the Canadian Women’s Health Effects Study (n = 286) was conducted. The findings suggest that, among women who have recently left an abusive partner, differences in income are associated with disparities in the fit of PHC services and to mental and physical health. Nurses and other health care professionals must collaborate with women and advocate for policy changes to improve equitable access to PHC services that meet the diverse needs of this population.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.366
Threshold uncertainty score0.727

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship@Western (Western University)→Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion research→French-language works237,207→