Bibliographic record
Abstract
The shift in global health policy from an emphasis on maternal, newborn, and child health (MNCH) to sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) marks a significant victory for many reasons. For feminists, this addresses concerns over the essentialist and pronatalist biases of the maternal frame, and it emancipates women beyond their socioculturally prescribed roles as mothers. Moreover, the shift to a focus on sexual and reproductive health and rights broadens commitments to health services like abortion access, services to address gender-based violence, and support for LGBTQ youth, and to potential beneficiaries beyond pregnant and parturient women. In this article, however, I argue that while this shift in policy focus represents an overdue discursive victory, there are more complex implications for both policies and the individuals that they affect. I suggest a more deliberate approach to the construction of unified, inclusive, reproductive subjects that can be situated in particular contexts and experiences. I also consider the ways in which a unified reproductive subject can combine the maternal with multiple (racialized, LGBTQ, variably abled) subjectivities in order to create possibilities for points of feminist (standpoint) inquiry, grounded normative analysis, and improved understanding of global reproductive justice that are fundamentally antiessentialist and capable of revealing situated knowledges.
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 | 0.028 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.114 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| 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".