MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Conceiving Silence: Infertility as Discursive Contradiction in Ireland

2011· article· en· W1867775245 on OpenAlexafffund
Jill Allison

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Anthropology Quarterly · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSilenceInfertilityReproductionStigma (botany)PoliticsSociologyGender studiesNorm (philosophy)FertilityPolitical sciencePsychologyLawAestheticsPopulationDemographyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the production and reproduction of silence around infertility in Ireland. Based on narratives collected during 18 months of fieldwork, this article locates the contradictory role of silence in both the private experiences of individuals faced with a difficulty conceiving and in institutions constituted as mechanisms of public support. For many people who experience infertility, silence is rooted in the social stigma associated with reproductive failure or sexual inadequacy. Silence protects privacy while at the same time foreclosing both challenges to assumptions that fertility is the norm and any counterdiscourse to the heteronormative, profamily society in Ireland. I show how the reproduction of silence about infertility is a legacy of Ireland's history, reproductive politics, and the cultural idiom of choice. I argue that support networks and Internet bulletin boards on websites create opportunities to dialogue in silence, reproducing isolation rather than creating public discourse.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0160.072
Scholarly communication0.0150.009
Open science0.0020.019
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Anthropology QuarterlySame topicReproductive Health and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207