MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388497963 · doi:10.1177/08861099231210941

Social Work in a Post- <i>Dobbs</i> World: The ‘Adoption Fallacy’, Decolonization, and Reproductive Justice

2023· article· en· W4388497963 on OpenAlexaff
Kristen E. Cheney, Karen Smith Rotabi

Bibliographic record

VenueAffilia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFallacySociologyEconomic JusticeLawComplicitySupreme courtAbortionReproductive healthReproductive justiceEnvironmental ethicsPolitical scienceLaw and economicsEpistemologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article takes as its departure a critique of the ‘adoption fallacy’ underlying the US Supreme Court decision Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization to argue that the Dobbs decision incentivizes a reconsideration of social work practice as a site for advancing reproductive justice. To do this, however, social work must strive to decolonize the profession by critically reflecting on its role in reproductive policy and politics, particularly its complicity in abortion and adoption decisions that may have limited—and continue to limit—reproductive justice. Only then can social work effectively counter the adoption fallacy and advocate more broadly for reproductive justice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.459
Threshold uncertainty score0.297

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAffiliaSame topicReproductive Health and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207