Changes in women's health activism as observed in Our Bodies, Ourselves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using data from feminist health advocacy books, I have identified the key changes within women’s health activism and the approach to women’s empowerment over the last 40 years. I conducted content analysis on a total of six chapters selected from two editions of Our Bodies Ourselves (1973, 2011) in order to trace key changes. My findings show three distinct developments in the approaches to activism. The first was a transformation from a critique of the medical system to an acceptance of the capitalist control of medicine. Next, I observed a change in focus from the free choice over whether to use birth control to a moral obligation to use one of many available forms of birth control. Finally, I determined that feminism has abandoned its focus on shared responsibility for health care, and instead focuses on patient-led responsibility. This in turn reflects a shift in empowerment from a focus on broad social change to individualistic solutions. I determined that these changes have been informed by a broad change in feminism to a more neoliberally informed feminism. By identifying sites of potential inequality, these findings can be employed in order to create policy that aims to build a more equitable health care experience for marginalized populations in the United States.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".