How Canadian Law Shapes the Health Care Experiences of Women with Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting/Circumcision and Their Providers: A Disjuncture Between Expectation and Actuality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored how the reproductive health care experiences of women with female genital mutilation/cutting/circumcision (FGC) were shaped. We used Institutional Ethnography, a sociological approach which allows for the study of social relations and the coordination of health care. From qualitatively interviewing eight women with FGC, we learned that they felt excluded within the Canadian health care system because they were unable to access reconstructive surgery, which was not covered by Ontario's universal health coverage (Ontario Health Insurance Plan). We then talked with seven obstetricians/gynecologists (OB/GYNs) and learned that while it was legal to perform certain genital (e.g., female genital cosmetic surgery) and reproductive (e.g., elective caesarean section) surgeries commonly requested by Western-born women, it was not legal for them to perform other genital surgeries often requested by immigrant populations (e.g., reinfibulation), nor were these covered by OHIP (e.g., clitoral reconstructive surgery). From participants' comparison of clitoral reconstructive surgery and reinfibulation to female genital cosmetic and gender confirming surgeries, it became clear that the law and policies within the health care system favored surgeries elected by Western adults over those wished for by women with FGC. We found that the law had an impact on the choices that OB/GYNs and the women they treated could make, shaping their respective experiences. This created ethical dilemmas for OB/GYNs and a sense of exclusion from the health care system for women with FGC.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".