MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103778377 · doi:10.5153/sro.1714

Interpreting Compliance and Resistance to Medical Dominance in Women's Accounts of Their Pregnancies

2008· article· en· W2103778377 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueSociological Research Online · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal Changes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersUniversity of VictoriaSpencer Foundation
KeywordsRationalisationCompromiseNegotiationNarrativeResistance (ecology)Gender studiesSociologyDominance (genetics)Compliance (psychology)Relevance (law)Maternity careQualitative researchMedical carePsychologySocial psychologyNursingMedicinePolitical scienceHealth careSocial scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The dominant discourse of ‘risk’ underlies the medical surveillance of pregnant women. This article draws upon interview data from a purposeful sample of twenty-seven childbearing women, focusing on the tensions and negotiations that take place for these women between the informal, everyday experiences of childbearing and the formal boundaries of organised medical/midwifery care. Through such techniques as narrative reconstruction, rationalisation, and resistance and compromise, our respondents were active agents in interpreting and shaping their reproductive experiences. Yet, their experiences were invariably framed within the dominant discourse of medicine, pointing to its relevance even for women choosing alternative models of maternity care.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.706
Threshold uncertainty score0.890

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
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 head0.316
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.094 · 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