Young Women’s Acknowledgment of Reproductive Coercion: A Qualitative Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reproductive coercion (RC) is a form of violence perpetuated against women. It occurs when male partners adopt behaviors meant to control a woman's birth control or pregnancy despite her wishes. This amounts to interference with a woman's autonomy in reproductive decisions. The three main forms of RC are birth control sabotage (including nonconsensual condom removal), pregnancy coercion, and controlling the outcome of a pregnancy. This qualitative exploratory study examines issues in the acknowledgment of RC. Participants were 21 young women in Québec (Canada), who had experienced this form of violence. Results of individual semi-directed interviews reveal that RC can be difficult to acknowledge. A thematic analysis demonstrates that awareness is modulated by the manifestations of RC and by the emotional bond with the perpetrator. Acknowledgment of RC behavior varies according to the form that is experienced: Nonconsensual condom removal is the most readily identified, whereas acknowledgment of pregnancy pressure and pregnancy coercion takes longer, requiring repeated incidents before it is identified as a form of violence. In addition, acknowledgment is facilitated when relationships are casual and uncommitted compared with romantic and committed. Moreover, reading about the issue, confiding in a friend or acquaintance, and finding a new partner who respects one's reproductive rights facilitate RC acknowledgment. In contrast, not self-identifying as a victim, assuming responsibility for the incident, having a limited understanding of sexual violence, and experiencing other forms of violence with an intimate partner contribute to impede RC acknowledgment. Results are discussed in terms of practical implications for young adults and health care professionals.
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 | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".