Pregnant woman versus mosquito: A feminist epidemiology of Zika virus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article investigates the contradictions between public health protocols and infection containment efforts concerning Zika virus and reproductive rights. In El Salvador, for example, women are being advised to avoid pregnancy until 2018, at which time local authorities hope that the virus will be under control. This is not so easy, however, as there is limited access to contraception, abortion is illegal in all instances, and women tend to have little household authority. In this article, I examine the policy, legal, and political contradictions related to the global proliferation of Zika virus in the context of ongoing debates about stratified reproduction. This term conceptualizes the phenomenon that accords different values to reproductive tasks undertaken by women in different socioeconomic, cultural, and national contexts. Whereas reproduction and reproductive autonomy tend to be highly respected and protected for relatively privileged women in the Global North, they tend to be much less so for women of the Global South. Furthermore, the adherence to public and private divisions in both national and transnational contexts segregates reproductive rights from the mainstream of political negotiation and public health intervention, and in doing so frustrates progress toward the realization of global reproductive 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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".