D. Gastaldo ‐ Immigrant Women’s Health Promotion (2002) 1 Revisiting Personal is Political: Immigrant Women’s Health Promotion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
the year 2000. Becoming an immigrant is a process characterized by losses in socio-economic status and social networks. Although on arrival immigrants have a better health status than the average Canadian (Chen et al., 1996), after 10 years in the country they are in poorer health and have a higher prevalence of chronic health conditions (Dunn & Dyck, 2000). Immigrant women are particularly at risk for mental illness and other chronic diseases. They also lack access to health care services. This data reveals the urgent need to learn how to prevent illnesses and promote the health of Canadian immigrants. For instance, very little is known about immigrant women’s strengths and their health promotion strategies in everyday life. In this context, it is important to acquire new insights on how to promote immigrant women’s health. To date, the study of immigrant women’s experiences of health has been divided by a myriad of ethno-cultural groups. This approach has failed to identify the common elements of the immigrant experience shared by women. The proposed project is guided by concepts that transcend country of origin, which are gender, place and displacement, and power relations in everyday living. This study will focus in the particular context of mental health promotion. The core concept in health promotion is empowerment, meaning that in order to achieve health and well-being individuals and communities should have control over their lives. In the proposed study empowerment will be problematised as a potential means for achieving better health, but also as a strategy to raise self-responsibility for health by governments
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".