Enacting Feminist Methodologies in Research Toward Reproductive Justice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reporting on the development of an ongoing qualitative research project with clients of midwifery care in New Brunswick, Canada, this article details the ways that methodology is complexly interwoven with political praxis. Working through the development of this project, this article models one way to enact politically engaged feminist research at each stage of the research process, from developing the research question, through research design, data collection, analysis, and theory generation. In the process, three core principles of feminist research methodologies are extended: co-construction of knowledge, researcher reflexivity, and reciprocal relationships in research. This research is caught up in and responds to a fraught political context where supports for reproductive healthcare are limited, and midwifery, abortion, and gender-affirming care are all framed as “fringe” services that exceed the austerity budget of the province. Participants engaged in this study with a clear understanding of this political terrain and approached interviews as an opportunity to share their experiences, and to advocate for the continuation and expansion of midwifery and related services in the province. Through the research process, it has become evident that midwifery must be understood as part of the struggle toward reproductive justice in this province. These reflections will direct further stages of the project, including ongoing research and dissemination.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Qualitative | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Qualitative | high |
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 | 0.246 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.096 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".