MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1585435283

Techno-Maternity: Rethinking the Possibilities of Reproductive Technologies

2008· article· en· W1585435283 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThirdspace · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommodificationPremiseReproductionNarrativeFeminismSociologyOrder (exchange)Reproductive technologyAestheticsGender studiesEnvironmental ethicsEpistemologyArtEcologyBiologyPhilosophyPregnancyLiteratureBusiness
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, corporeal feminism is utilised as a tool to uncover the maternal bodies produced when reproductive technology meets pregnant flesh. Moving from the premise that bodies are not inert or stable entities but rather are constantly being produced and reproduced through their interaction with their environment, I highlight three of the many bodies that arise in techno-maternity. The body A¢â‚¬Eœat riskA¢â‚¬â„¢, the A¢â‚¬Eœin/visibleA¢â‚¬â„¢ body and the A¢â‚¬Eœcommodified bodyA¢â‚¬â„¢ are all discussed in order to reread both the possibilities and the problematics of reproduction in a technological age, and to complicate the staid feminist narrative of reproductive technology as either A¢â‚¬EœliberatingA¢â‚¬â„¢ or A¢â‚¬EœoppressiveA¢â‚¬â„¢.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.608
Threshold uncertainty score0.652

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.245 · 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