Toward a Comprehensive, International and Interdisciplinary Analysis of Procreative Work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research Framework : In line with materialist feminist analyses, this paper revisits the boundaries between so-called productive versus reproductive work to deconstruct their foundations and show that, behind the social organization of procreation, there is work for which women are primarily responsible. Objectives : The purpose of this introduction is to examine the production of children and the decision not to have them through the lens of procreative work, thus integrating the different tasks involved in procreation, non-procreation and child rearing. This will also demonstrate the importance of thinking about the right to the work of procreation within the social norms that frame the multiple sequences of the (non)production of new human beings. Methodology : This introductory paper is based on a review of literature that clarifies the key concepts of “procreative work” and “procreative rights” that are used to analyze the tasks associated with procreation - understood in a broad sense – in order to contextualize the various papers in this issue. Results : While demonstrating the heuristic power of the conceptual choices made, the paper highlights areas of resistance to the analysis of procreative work and opens up multiple avenues of investigation to broaden this topic for a comprehensive, international and interdisciplinary understanding of the field of procreation. Conclusion : The interpretation proposed as a framework for thinking about the production of children and the decision to not have them, and what this implies for women, allows an array of everyday tasks that are particularly time-consuming and yet unnoticed to be brought to light. It highlights the need to integrate the different approaches, including legal norms, that constitute the social framework for procreative work. Contribution : This paper synthesizes knowledge regarding the concepts used to analyze tasks related to the (non)production of children.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".