MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766665049 · doi:10.1080/13691058.2017.1384852

Feminism, biomedicine and the ‘reproductive destiny’ of women in clinical texts on the birth control pill

2017· article· en· W2766665049 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea Carson

Bibliographic record

VenueCulture Health & Sexuality · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal Changes
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of TorontoPublic Health Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPillScholarshipBiomedicineBirth controlFeminismGender studiesDestiny (ISS module)SituatedEmbodied cognitionSociologyMedicineFamily planningPolitical scienceEpistemologyDemographyPopulationLawBiologyEngineeringPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The birth control pill is one of the most popular forms of contraception in North America and has been a key player in women's rights activism for over 50 years. In this paper, I conduct a feminist deconstructive analysis of 12 biomedical texts on the birth control pill, published between 1965 and 2016. This study is situated amongst the feminist scholarship that challenges the representation of women's bodies in biomedicine. Findings suggest that clinical texts on the birth control pill continue to universalise women's lives and experiences, and essentialise them based on their reproductive capacities. One way the texts accomplish this is by making women absent or passive in the literature thereby losing concern for the diversity of their lives, interpretations and identities as more than reproductive beings. The consequence of such representations is that biomedical texts disseminate limited forms of knowledge, in particular concerning definitions of 'natural' and 'normal' behaviour, with important consequences for the embodied experiences of women.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.730
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.246 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations12
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCulture Health & SexualitySame topicHistorical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal ChangesFrench-language works237,207