“I didn’t feel normal”: Young Canadian women’s experiences with polycystic ovary syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), which affects 8 to 13% of reproductive-aged women, is a highly gendered disorder whose symptoms disrupt Western conceptions of femininity. This may be especially debilitating for young women, who are targeted by societal discourses governing how they “should” be. We interviewed 10 young Canadian women, aged 18 to 22, about how PCOS has influenced and/or conflated their conceptions of identity and (ab)normality within the current socio-cultural context. Using reflexive thematic analysis through a critical feminist lens, we present three themes: justifying abnormality, pathologizing the abnormal, and fear of failure in pregnancy. Young women described feeling “weird” and “not normal” as a result of their symptoms and expressed worries about their ability to adhere to gendered expectations. We argue that the blanketing of these desirable states as “normal” has pervasive implications for women’s lives and leaves them feeling defective and/or inadequate, which was further reinforced by implicit, gender-based power dynamics in medical institutions when women sought care. We suggest the need for engagement with discomfort and leveraging PCOS as a unique entryway into an analysis of intersectional issues to capture complexities in lived experience.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.043 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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".