Birth Controlled: Reproductive Choice among Female Graduate Students in Montreal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reproduction has been studied extensively in anthropology, yet scholars have focused predominantly on menstruation, pregnancy, and childbirth—events which take place for a limited duration (a matter of hours, days, or months) each time a woman experiences them. The reproductive cycle, on the other hand, continues essentially unabated for decades of a woman’s life. It is this largely unexplored area of women’s lived experience, and the contraceptive choices women make with regard to their ongoing fertility, that are addressed in the course of this thesis. Research was conducted through a variety of methods. First, multiple virtual and physical sites of information were examined, including websites, television advertisements, and published materials related to sexual health. Second, three medical professionals and a number of volunteers were interviewed about their perspectives and practices toward sexual education and reproductive health. Third, the methods and activities of a university sexual education volunteer group were observed and analyzed. Finally, eleven women were interviewed regarding their sexual education, history of contraceptive usage, and their perceptions of their fertility and birth control options. Ten of these women also participated in a brief contraceptive questionnaire. This thesis considers the ways that contraception is part of a system that not only provides reproductive power to women, but paradoxically contributes to ignorance of female biological processes, governs birth control choices, and manages women’s fertility. By exploring this system alongside women’s understandings and experiences, I examine the complicated ways that women are, in fact, controlling their reproduction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".