Seizing the Means of Reproduction? Canada, Cancer Screening, and the Colonial History of the Cytopipette
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, self-sampling has emerged as a compelling way of increasing cervical cancer screening rates within First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities. By allowing women to take their own samples in private, when and where they are most comfortable, home testing kits have been framed as a new, unequivocally feminist technology, and a panacea in Indigenous health. But are these techniques really as ethical and empowering as they have been made out to be? To answer this question, this article traces the history of the uptake and use of cervical cancer screening technologies in Canada. By tracing the mechanics and motivations of two state-sponsored cervical cancer screening studies carried out by Canada's Department of Indian Health Services during the mid to late twentieth century, this piece explores the settler-colonial roots of cancer surveillance, and shows how the implementation of both Pap-testing and DIY forms of screening within Indigenous communities has, at least historically, been more about enacting biopolitical regimes than promoting feminist ideals or improving health outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".