MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2730213056

Contesting "Silhouettes of a Pregnant Belly": Young Pregnant Women’s Discursive Constructions of the Body

2011· article· en· W2730213056 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Geneviève Rail, Emma Amanda Harper

Bibliographic record

VenueAporia · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicObesity and Health Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFemininityGender studiesDiscourse analysisContext (archaeology)BeautySociologyHeterosexualityPerspective (graphical)Subject (documents)Construct (python library)Critical discourse analysisHuman sexualityAestheticsPolitical scienceHistoryIdeologyPoliticsArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we draw on a feminist poststructuralist perspective to explore how young pregnant women discursively construct the pregnant body in the context of the dominant obesity discourse and other prevailing bodily discourses. Open-ended interviews were conducted with 15 pregnant women between the ages of 18 and 28 coming from various socioeconomic and educational backgrounds in the Ottawa region. The poststructralist discourse analysis reveals that, overall, the participants are interpellated by the dominant obesity discourse and other bodily discourses surrounding beauty, femininity, and heterosexuality. Paradoxically, they also recite alternative discourses that resist dominant bodily discourses. The young pregnant women seem to constitute themselves as conflicted subjects simultaneously reproducing dominant and subversive discourses. This leads us to conclude with a discussion surrounding the need for more realistic and inclusive subject positions within pregnancy discourses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.038
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAporiaSame topicObesity and Health PracticesFrench-language works237,207