Abortion discourse in Bolivian hospital contexts: doctors’ repertoire conflicts and the Saving Women device
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The author proposes going Beyond attitudes (Potter and Wetherell 1987) to a more nuanced assessment of doctors' discursive variations. Through an application of Gilbert and Mulkay's (1984) interpretative repertoires, she defined three voices--technical, normative and pragmatic--in which Bolivian doctors spoke of abortion. In State and social security hospital contexts, doctors hastened to express compliance with government policy and institutional norms regulating abortion and postabortion care. Technical and pragmatic considerations, however, often entered into conflict with established rules. When contradictions became apparent in their own discourse, doctors regularly drew on the Saving Women device. This accounting strategy enabled them to save face as up-to-date professionals through justifying temporary deviance from norms in terms of benefit to women treated. The author describes her development of the repertoires, their validation with different medical audiences, and doctors' critical appropriation of the model to explain their own discursive variations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it