Understanding the meaning and role of gifts given to Ugandan mothers in maternity care settings: ‘The help they give when they've seen how different you are’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The provision of gifts to new mothers in Uganda is laden with significance that varies by the social location of the giver and receiver and the context and conditions under which the gift is made available. Here, we examine the act of gift giving and receiving within a Ugandan maternity care setting, describing the connections between these material objects and social relations. A study investigating the social organisation of maternity care in post-conflict northern Uganda found that gift-giving to new mothers functioned to create a material and discursive context wherein women's desire to access these goods was leveraged to create an incentive to attend formal maternity care during pregnancy and for delivery. In this article we describe the material and discursive processes surrounding gift-giving to new mothers in this global South health care setting. This article contributes critical analyses of the function of gifts in healthcare settings as constructing shared identities, social differences and normative values about health citizenship, and an incentive politic that affects equitable access to maternity care. Drawing on intersectional theory and analysis of how specific practices function ideologically to reward or incentivise pregnant women, we integrate material culture studies into the sociology of women's reproductive health.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".