Embroidering Infertility: Using Art to Reveal and Resist Technobiopower in In Vitro Fertilisation Experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the Western context of delayed motherhood and declining fertility, an array of fertility enhancements have emerged. While bioethical debates and literature on the technological prowess of these enhancements proliferate, it is useful to explore the lived experience of women undergoing them. This article uses Tabitha Moses’ artwork Investment, a series of embroidered hospital gowns, as a vehicle to explore lived experience of women engaging with fertility enhancements, including in vitro fertilisation. This analysis challenges dominant biomedical and corporate discourses framing fertility enhancements as benign. Using constructs of patriarchy, biopower, biopolitics (Foucault), and technobiopower (Haraway), we identify how power over women’s bodies is extended through fertility enhancements. Haraway’s notion of figuration supports the analysis. Understood as a tropic melding of semiotic and material, the figuration of The Infertile Woman offers a way to explore discursive operations of power and amid them the creation of a new form of reproductive labour.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".