A critical feminist discursive analysis of dynamics shaping abortion in Canada: Implications for nursing.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The advent of “the abortion pill” (Mifegymiso) in 2015 has shaped the contemporary context of access to abortion in Canada. In this paper, we highlight findings of a literature review that uses a gender and intersectional lens and critical discourse analysis to explore contemporary abortion access and implications for nursing. The discursive dynamics influencing nurses’ understandings of abortion, that is, the contexts in which some discourses are privileged over others yet often operate at the unconscious level to influence everyday knowledge and practices, are important to discern to work towards social justice goals. Findings suggest that normative and contradictory features of discourses such as women’s health, motherhood, and abortion access are relevant. Given the relative silence of abortion in nursing literature and prevailing gender normativity in nursing, there are compelling reasons to apply a critical feminist lens to deepen nurses’ understandings and critical reflection about abortion. There are implications for current education, research, and nursing practice.
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 | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.037 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".