Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: In Canada, any adult who is aware of the permanent consequences of a tubal ligation is allowed to receive it, yet many doctors refuse to perform the procedure on women, especially those from marginalized communities. The purpose of this report is to investigate and identify some of the barriers that impede Canadian women’s ability to access voluntary sterilization. There is a particular focus on how Canada's history of eugenics and coerced sterilization shapes the current conditions under which women seek and are too often refused access to permanent contraception. Methods: Six qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted with scholars and activists in the field of Reproductive Justice (RJ) and reproductive healthcare. The interviews facilitated discussions about reproductive autonomy, patient rights, and patriarchal attitudes in medicine. An RJ framework and thematic analysis were used to uncover systemic barriers from the interview responses. Results: As discovered through the interviews, the most prevalent barriers to access to voluntary sterilization in contemporary Canada include race, class, language, ethnicity, disability, age and parity. An RJ framework identifies historical parallels to these present-day barriers by looking at the historical and colonial forces that disempower intersectional marginalized communities and influence their reproductive decisions today. Discussions: Canada’s eugenics attitudes from the past seep into the current barriers to access faced by women of colour, low-income women, female newcomers, women with disabilities, and young or nulliparous women. The assumption that these women are not capable of deciding the right course of action for their own bodies and thus should not be trusted by healthcare providers in making these decisions is a consistent problem in both time frames. Conclusion: The restrictions and modes of disempowerment placed on variously positioned women in the past come back in a new form that leads to those same groups being doubted and denied reproductive justice in the present. Many of the interviewees believed that increasing diversity in the medical field is necessary to help alleviate the discrepancies in how contraceptive healthcare is given.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".