“There is people like us and there is people like them, and we are not like them.” Understating social exclusion – a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social exclusion is a complex concept that is relevant in terms of the health of vulnerable groups. Attempts have been made in the past to measure it, both at the population and the individual level. The aim of this research was to engage with a broad range of relevant stake holders in Ireland in order to learn how they defined and conceptualised social exclusion. Semi-structured interviews were carried out with 24 participants selected using maximum variation sampling. One quarter of the interviewees were experts by experience. Partici pants included academic experts, the heads of organisations working nationally with socially excluded groups, politicians, clinicians, support workers and health service managers all with experience of working with socially excluded groups. The resulting definition of social exclusion was “the experience of lack of opportunity, or the inability to make use of available opportunities, thereby preventing full participation in society.” From this, we developed a new model of the concept comprising three elements; Opportunities, Influencing factors and Social outcomes. Opportunities are the fundamental needs that are required to be met for a person to begin leaving social exclusion. Influencing factors are a mixture of the personal characteristics and more complex problems such as the intergenerational effects of disad vantage. Social outcomes include a person being accepted by wider society, and subse quently being able to participate. The conceptual framework we developed can contribute to a better understanding of the concept of social exclusion. The traditional policy focus on improving the needs of excluded people at the Opportunities level must continue, but must be complemented by tackling the problems at the levels of the Influencing factors and Social outcomes also. In terms of changes to practice, the measurement of the social exclusion status of people engaging with primary care and other services would be an important start in order to better understand the magnitude of the work required.
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 | 0.022 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".