"That time of the month" : the history of PMS research in Vancouver 1983-1997
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines how the women's movement of the 1960s and 1970s influenced scholarship in the social sciences, and how the feminism growing out of this movement affected premenstrual syndrome (PMS) research. Since the 1980s social science paradigms guiding P M S research have begun to consider how biology and the environment mutually influence one another to produce premenstrual changes. The work examined in this thesis uses feminism to challenge traditional scientific approaches to PMS, including claims o f "objectivity," negative evaluations of menstrual changes in women, the claim that women experience natural cycles and men do not, and the belief that the expression of anger contradicts the feminine role. The research herein is based on all psychology research on PMS produced in the greater Vancouver area during the 1980s and 1990s. The knowledge that has been constructed about PMS through social sciences research also contributes to a common narrative about gender. This narrative holds that femininity and masculinity are not only linked to concepts of biological sex but also to concepts of culture that are heavily influenced by power relationships. The research examined here contributes to this narrative by challenging traditional theories about women's nature and by implementing research methods that add to our understanding of the way that cultural values influence research and knowledge production. The image of women as passive victims of "that time of the month" has been called into question by an image o f women that takes society and culture into account when explaining "women's nature."
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".