Precarious beginnings: Gendered risk discourses in psychiatric research literature about postpartum depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The transition to motherhood in western society is particularly informed by risk-based scientific and medical discourses and, as a result, women are especially subject to rationalities and practices that are employed in the name of risk. The aim of this article is to examine the gendered risk discourses that are embedded in one aspect of medicalized mothering - the postpartum period. This article interrogates three key elements of the discursive construction of postpartum depression (PPD) in contemporary psychiatric research literature (approximately 1980-2007). Specifically, I examine how risk-based reasoning is incorporated into the concepts of the postpartum triad and the high-risk mother, and how arguments about why PPD is a 'significant social problem' create a tension between the rights of the mother and those of the child. By placing women in a position to manage certain types of risks related to the postpartum period, these discourses serve to responsibilize women and structure their subjectivities in gendered ways.This analysis contributes to a growing literature that investigates how assumptions about gender, race, class and sexuality are produced and re-produced through the notion of risk.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".