Motherhood, Medicine & Markets: The Changing Cultural Politics of Postnatal Care Provision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In high-income countries welfare states play a crucial role in defining - and re-defining - what is offered as publicly provided care, and as a result shape the role of families, markets and the voluntary sector in care provision. Fiscal policies of cost containment, coupled with neoliberal policies stressing individual responsibility and reliance on market forces in recent decades, have resulted in the contraction of state provided care services in a range of sectors and states. There has also been widespread retrenchment in public health sectors across many countries resulting in policies of deinstitionalisation and early discharge from hospital that are predicated on the assumption that the family or voluntary sector will pick up the slack in the care chain. At the same time that this loosening of medicalized control has occurred, services to families with young children have become increasingly targeted on ‘at risk’ mothers through widespread population surveillance. To date, analyses of the implications of these important changes in care provision have primarily focused on health services and outcomes for birthing women and their newborns. In this paper, we make the case that post-birth care is a form of social care shaped not only by welfare state policies but also by cultural norms, and we suggest an analytic framework for examining some of the recent changes in the provision of postpartum care. We use examples from three developed welfare states - the Netherlands, Australia and Canada - to illustrate how variations in welfare state policy and cultural norms and ideals shape the provision of home and community based postnatal services.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".