Derrière l'avortement, les cadres sociaux de l'autonomie des femmes : refus de maternité, sexualités et vies des femmes sous contrôle : une comparaison France -Québec.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on a sociological survey about women having aborted in the last ten years in France and Quebec, this research reveals contraceptive norm in these two societies, specially the strong opposition made by all women – even those who aborted several times – between “good” birth control practices: contraception and “bad” one: abortion. Although abortion is a structural data of women’s reproductive trajectories, a practice today without risk to their health and an ordinary act when defeated moral burden associated with it, termination of pregnancy continues to be subject to a set of social representations still stigmatizing. Also, analysis of women's experiences accounts for all elements that color the experience of one or more abortions. If the decision to abort is obvious to all women, when they are involved in competing activities (education, career or breeding and feeding of an infant), it can become more difficult when corresponds to the refusal of their partner to invest a parental project they carry alone. Finally, put into perspective the terms of the support outlined by women in Paris and Montreal , reveals the many obstacles that can make this a more complicated or painful episode, showing reluctance in these two societies to think this practice as an ordinary act of birth planning falling mainly in the health field.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".