MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3008053429 · doi:10.1080/17450101.2020.1723244

Reproductive vibes: therapeutic atmospheres and the reproductive force of tourism mobilities

2020· article· en· W3008053429 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMobilities · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSex work and related issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMobilitiesTourismRationalityFeelingSociologyEthnographyEveryday lifeReproductionAffect (linguistics)Subject (documents)Gender studiesAestheticsEpistemologySocial psychologyPsychologyPolitical scienceSocial scienceEcologyBiologyAnthropologyComputer scienceArtCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drawing on a conceptual framework of therapeutic atmospheres, I explore the question of how a tourist destination reverberated with reproductive potentiality or a ‘reproductive vibe.’ I draw on ethnographic fieldwork attentive to the ‘charged atmosphere of everyday life’, to consider how reproductive possibilities unfolded in the Costa Rican Caribbean for some tourist women. Moving away from the autonomous, liberal, mobile subject as only ever a rational agent in reproductive decision-making, this article introduces new actors into the analytical and empirical framework of reproductive mobilities and cross-border reproductive care. I look at destination branding entangled with therapeutic ‘life affirming’ possibilities that emanated from local spaces and relations with the environment. In doing so, I trouble the irrational/rationality binary that dominates notions of reproductive decision-making to consider the role of affect, feelings, and bodies in reproductive subjectivities.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.004
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.251 · 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