Intimate constraints: a feminist political economy analysis of biological reproduction and parenting in high-support housing in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract To date there has been little consideration of the role of housing programs in conditioning the intimate lives of people living with mental illness labels. This article employs a Feminist Political Economy lens with insights from Mad & Disability Studies to interrogate the intimate constraints experienced by some residents in high-support mental health housing in Ontario, Canada. It demonstrates that long-standing medicalized notions of mental illness and system-wide anxiety over the social and financial costs of the reproduction of disabled bodies give rise to these intimate constraints, specifically limitations and control over biological reproduction and parenting practices. In this way, the mechanisms of intimate constraint within high-support housing are not merely holdovers from a time gone by, but are rather part of a mental health care system guided by the principles of neoliberalism under which neo-eugenics is regularly enacted. This is a timely contribution, as the province of Ontario is currently planning to expand the supportive housing system within which high-support housing is situated and because high-support housing in Ontario is rarely studied in relation to feminist political economy and/or mental health care. This article draws on documentary review of governmental and third-sector materials and 38 semi-structured interviews with service providers and residents in the high-support housing system in Ontario. It situates intimate constraints within the long history of eugenics and neo-eugenics in Ontario and Canada, and the classed, raced, and gendered hierarchy of human bodies that is taking on new forms under neoliberalism.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".