MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399202958 · doi:10.1136/medhum-2023-012865

#Headlesspreggos: challenging visual imaginaries of pregnancy and reproduction

2024· article· en· W4399202958 on OpenAlexafffund
Alana Cattapan, Danielle Mastromatteo

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Humanities · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicObesity and Health Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersInstitute of Human Development, Child and Youth HealthCanada Research ChairsSaskatchewan Health Research Foundation
KeywordsAutonomyPregnancyMisinformationAgency (philosophy)Meaning (existential)EugenicsAbortionReproductionPsychologySociologyGender studiesLawPolitical scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Amid new abortion restrictions in the USA, scientific advances in genetic technologies and investigations of COVID-19 vaccinations in pregnancy, news stories about reproduction abound, often accompanied by images of what journalist Josie Glausiusz has called the "headless, legless, pregnancy bump". These images of disembodied pregnant torsos at once improve search engine optimisation for news organisations while perpetuating the view of the 'bump' as the quintessential visual representation of pregnancy.The images that accompany news articles convey meaning beyond what is included in the text and work to reinforce stereotypes about race, gender and age. In the so-called obesity epidemic, for example, psychotherapist and fat activist Charlotte Cooper documented how images of fat people with their heads cropped out view had become a visual symbol of abjection-'the headless fatty'-without a face or agency to speak of. The use of 'headless preggos' similarly divorces pregnant people from the embodied experience of their pregnancies, reducing them to a single body part.In this article, we chronicle our experiences tracking images of headless preggos via Twitter, arguing that their use works to erase pregnant people's autonomy and to construct the fetus as the central concern in reproductive interventions. We begin by tracing the evolution of visual representations of pregnancy including the increasing focus on the fetus and 'bump'. We then provide a description of our experience with the Twitter account, including our exchanges with academics, journalists and others that highlight how the continued reliance on headless preggos obscures the experiences of pregnant people by focusing all attention on the fetus, as well as how the same images might be thoughtfully deployed. We conclude by offering suggestions for those creating and selecting images that might result in more robust, creative visual representations of pregnancy and reproduction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0090.016
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.097
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.370 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical HumanitiesSame topicObesity and Health PracticesFrench-language works237,207