Food Insecurity: A Barrier to Reproductive Justice Globally
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Reproductive Justice identifies three core reproductive rights for all people: (1) the right to not have a child; (2) the right to have a child; and (3) the right to parent children in safe and healthy environments. We aim to illustrate that food insecurity infringes upon on all three of these rights and so is a pressing issue for reproductive justice and for sexual and reproductive health more broadly.Methods: Using a phenomenological approach, we outline potential pathways between food insecurity and reproductive justice.Results: There are numerous potential pathways between food insecurity and reproductive justice, including entry into sexual relationships for material support, links to sexually transmitted infections and infertility, structural violence, prioritization and spending tradeoffs between food and other basic necessities, biological impacts of malnutrition, restricted reproductive choices, population control measures, and social stigma and exclusion. Marginalized people are disproportionately impacted by food insecurity and its consequences, with implications for sexual health and pleasure and for reproductive justice.Conclusions: Meaningful and equitable collaboration between people with lived experience of food insecurity, human rights and reproductive justice activists, and academics is critical to sensitively contextualize this work and mobilize broader social change.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".