MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050236011 · doi:10.1080/13691058.2014.896475

The ‘nonmenstrual woman’ in the new millennium? Discourses on menstrual suppression in the first decade of Extended Cycle Oral Contraception use in Canada

2014· article· en· W2050236011 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kara Granzow

Bibliographic record

VenueCulture Health & Sexuality · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMenstruationMenstrual cyclePsychologyEmbodied cognitionDevelopmental psychologyMedical prescriptionMedicineWindow of opportunityEndocrinologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the early-twenty-first century, extended cycle oral contraception (ECOC) became available by physician prescription in North America. Researchers speculate that this drug, with its capacity to reduce or eliminate menstrual bleeding, may shift not only women's biological processes but also their experiences of menstruation. In this paper, I discuss women's experiences of menstrual suppression drawing on findings from a qualitative study conducted before ECOC was available, and examine these findings against recently published research on menstrual suppression in an ECOC era. Findings suggest that the body as a natural entity figures strongly in women's discourses on suppression. They further suggest that suppression is a contingent, paradoxical and practical achievement, not a securely or fully realised embodied state. This paper reads women's accounts of menstrual suppression prior to ECOC as a challenge to the modern artifice of a mind/body split, and questions whether this challenge is perhaps made less discernible in an ECOC era, where attention may no longer be paid to the daily practices of menstrual suppression. Hence, a case is made for the varied political effects of ongoing non-menstruation versus event-specific practices of non-menstruation.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.452
Threshold uncertainty score0.472

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCulture Health & SexualitySame topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207