MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131596883 · doi:10.1080/13691050600963948

De‐constructing ‘choice’: The social imperative and women's use of the birth control pill

2007· review· en· W2131596883 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueCulture Health & Sexuality · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPillBirth controlAgency (philosophy)SilenceAmbiguityConstruct (python library)Family planningGender studiesSociologyControl (management)Social psychologyPsychologyPopulationMedicineResearch methodologySocial scienceAestheticsDemographyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the social construction of 'choice' in women's use of the oral contraceptive birth control pill. Using social and historical critiques of neo-liberalism, it is argued that the contemporary priority placed on 'choice' positions women in contradictory ways-requiring them to be both 'choosing' reproductive subjects and reproductive subjects with very few options. The paper works to de-construct contemporary understandings of choice and finds that women's use of the birth control pill is less an exercise of idealized individual agency than it is an act of repetition, tied to ambiguity around what a lived experience of choice might be. To elaborate elements of the theoretical discussion, findings from a qualitative study of women's use of the oral contraceptive are discussed. These reveal that women's articulations of 'choice' challenge the notion of genuinely available and viable alternatives for women, and demonstrate how the use of a technology can silence understandings of contraception as something other than an individual responsibility.

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)0.003
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.784

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.332 · 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