Criticai discourse analysis of policies impacting the intersection of health and experiences of intimate partner violence for rural women in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Intimate partner violence (IPV) impacts approximately one quarter of Canadian women, and services provided to support women are heavily influenced by policy. Policy sets the stage and tone for action in all sectors. To date, there have been no critical discourse analyses examining how provincial, hospital, and women's shelter policies intersect and impact women in rural communities. Methods: A critical discourse analysis using a case study of one rural community in south-western Ontario was undertaken by a multisectoral team of researchers using a critical, feminist, intersectional lens. The selected policies were (1) Domestic Violence Action Plan for Ontario (ODVAP), (2) the rural women's shelter policy, and (3) the hospital policy. Results: The internal analysis of the policies revealed that ODVAP Rural and Remote Health rrh. org. au focused on societal solutions to violence requiring cross-sectoral cooperation with a focus on marginalized populations, whereas the rural shelter policy focused on creating a philosophical orientation to underpin their work with clients. There was no formal hospital policy related to the provision of services for women who have experienced violence. The policies revealed a disconnect between the stated goals and the specifics concerning how the policies would come together to achieve these goals. Obstacles such as having no clear link for how ODVAP and the shelter policy would work together, idealization of training but a lack of specificity on what training would be useful, and the requirement of affirmative action on the part of women to engage with services functioned as a means to maintain the status quo, that is, working in a siloed approach to care. Conclusions: Integrative systems are important for women who have experienced IPV given the wide range of health, social, and economic consequences of violence. Policy alignment is important for women who have experienced or are experiencing IPV, particularly in rural contexts where services are fraught with additional barriers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".