Without Apology: Writings on Abortion in Canada (Book Review)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In reading Without Apology: Writings on Abortion in Canada, edited by Shannon Stettner (2016), it becomes clear that abortion experiences resonate broadly both socially and politically as much as they are also intimate to interpersonal relations and individual subjectivities and embodiments.Voices from different stakeholders and communities relay violence, oppression, pain, confusion, resolve, and even joy.Such voices are not often spoken loudly, let alone heard.To that end, Stettner collected academic and non-academic autoethnographic voices on abortion.This was a challenge, considering the systematic silencing of those who have had abortions.In the introduction, Stettner discusses her objectives of destigmatizing and normalizing talk about abortion through foregrounding the voices of those who have experienced them.She identifies the subtle perpetuation of stigma, even among those who identify as pro-choice, hinged on a powerful argument that it is predominantly structural factors, and not personal decisions, that give rise to the conditions of reproduction (see MacQuarrie's essay).Stettner suggests that we can see the discourse of "choice" as a kind of strategic bargain with a society that would otherwise not be amenable to talking about abortion.However, this discourse can be politicized following, as Stettner argues, activists and scholars who have moved instead to talking about reproductive justice.This movement is young in Canada and sets the scene for the collection.It is difficult to read this book.It is heartbreaking and enraging.For example, stories in Part 1 that impact the reader with force and weight
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".