MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1718929074 · doi:10.3138/cbmh.31.1.189

Contraception or Eugenics? Sterilization and “Mental Retardation” in the 1970s and 1980s

2014· article· en· W1718929074 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Health History · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedical History and Research
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEugenicsSterilization (economics)Female sterilizationLawAppealFamily planningMedicinePolitical sciencePopulationResearch methodologyBusinessEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nonconsensual sterilization is usually seen as the by-product of a classist and racist society; disability is ignored. This article examines the 1973 sterilization of two young black girls from Alabama and other precedent-setting court cases involving the sterilization of "mentally retarded" white women to make disability more central to the historical analysis of sterilization. It analyzes the concept of mental retardation and the appeal of a surgical solution to birth control, assesses judicial deliberations over the "right to choose" contraceptive sterilization when the capacity to consent is in doubt, and reflects on the shadow of eugenics that hung over the sterilization debate in the 1970s and 1980s.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.547
Threshold uncertainty score0.929

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.187 · 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