Advancing Reproductive Justice to Close the Health Gap: A Call to Action for Social Work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reproductive justice is an intersectional social movement, theory, and praxis well aligned with social work's mission and values. Yet, advancing reproductive justice-the right to have children, to not have children, to parent with safety and dignity, and to sexual and bodily autonomy-has not been a signature area of scholarship and practice for the field. This article argues that it is critical for social work to advance reproductive justice to truly achieve the grand challenge of closing the health gap. The article starts by discussing the history and tenets of reproductive justice and how it overlaps with social work ethics. The authors then highlight some of the ways by which social workers have been disruptors of and complicit in the oppression of individuals, families, and communities with regard to their reproductive rights and outcomes. The article concludes with a call to action and recommendations for social work to foreground reproductive justice in research, practice, and education efforts by centering marginalized voices while reimagining the field's pursuit of health equity.
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 | 0.115 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.043 | 0.168 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.039 | 0.046 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.048 |
| Research integrity | 0.048 | 0.069 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".