“Shut Up… and Push!” - Obstetrical Violence, Dignified Health Care and the Intersection with Human Rights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Violence against women is a globally pervasive issue that can take on multiple forms affecting women regardless of age, class, race/ethnicity, or ability. Within a patriarchal paradigm the subjugation of women is consistent across cultures and is reflected in social structures, including health care facilities and systems. Obstetrical violence is understood to be actions of abuse or disrespect experienced by a women during the prenatal and postnatal periods and is especially prevalent during labour and delivery. During a time of intense vulnerability, women can be subjected to verbal and physical abuse, lack of respect, acts of coercion, gross violations of privacy and the withholding of pain medication, often occurring at the hands of their care providers and these acts can be paralleled with similar experiences of women who have been abused by domestic partners. These practices can then inform a woman’s decision making related to future access to health care services and play a role in the development of sociocultural understandings of health care provision. Pregnancy and birthing continue to be one of the leading causes of death amongst women of childbearing age and governments have worked to increase women’s access to appropriate prenatal and birth related service provision, including emergency obstetrical care which can be provided in a health care facility with skilled birth attendants in place. The application of a human rights framework to women’s sexual and reproductive health shows promise as an effective tool to address the underlying structural inequalities that lead to acts of violence and pose a threat to women’s health. Keywords: women’s health, violence against women, obstetrical violence, human rights
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.061 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".