‘Feeling Ready’: A Feminist Poststructural Analysis of Postpartum Sexual Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There exists a lack of literature surrounding how postpartum individuals define feeling ‘ready’ to resume sexual activities after childbirth. Many factors may influence feelings of desire or readiness for sexual activities, such as breastfeeding. Therefore, it is important to understand why and how postpartum individuals understand and make meaning of their experiences surrounding postpartum sexual activities, as well as how those experiences are influenced or negotiated through relations of power. This study was guided by feminist poststructuralism and discourse analysis. Eleven participants who were between 1 and 6 months postpartum and living in Nova Scotia , Canada, were interviewed using semi-structured interviews. Participants challenged certain discourses surrounding sexual activities postpartum, including the social discourse that positions sexual activities as a requirement within romantic relationships and the discourse that positions health care providers as the authority on postpartum sexual health. ‘Feeling ready’ centered on four main issues: (1) navigating physical recovery; (2) personal knowing and emotional readiness; (3) the 6-week check; and (4) redefining intimacy. This article describes one branch of the findings within the overall study. Choosing to resume sexual activities postpartum, or feeling ready to do so, is individual, fluid, and complex. This research has important implications for practice and policy, specifically as it pertains to postpartum care.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".