Conceiving Reproduction: New Reproductive Technologies and the Redefinition of the Kinship Narrative in New Zealand Society
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
This paper focuses on technologies for assisting conception and considers how normative notions of conception and family formation have informed the rejection, incorporation and adaptation of technologies and their regulation in New Zealand. Drawing on a textual analysis of primary written materials and secondary sources generated between 1965 and 2004, the paper reveals how these technologies help various groups in New Zealand society make explicit their understandings of relatedness, identity and social and cultural belonging. Whilst biological/genetic connection and social connections inform understandings of kinship, reproduction, parenthood and social structure for many New Zealanders, the boundaries between the biological and social are often blurred and precedence of one over the other is very much context dependent. The incorporation of the new reproductive technologies has been an inherently politicised process, with barriers to access to these technologies emerging in relation to ethnic identity and race, sexuality, socioeconomic status, gender, and marital status.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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