Uncovering Reproductive Injustice Toward Women With Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: For centuries, the reproductive agency of women with disabilities have been challenged and often undermined by informal and formal support networks. Evidence illustrates that women with disabilities face disproportionately higher rates of reproductive violence compared to their nondisabled peers (i.e., long-term contraception or forced sterilization). However, little is known about the specific nature, type, and impact of reproductive violence on women with disabilities. This scoping review examined the literature related to the reproductive violence against women with disabilities. We used Arksey and O’Malley’s framework, and based on our inclusion criteria, 28 empirical articles were included. Most studies were published in the disciplines of health (i.e., nursing and medicine) within the North American context and used qualitative research designs. Main findings within the scoping review included themes related to imposed contraception, rationalization of sterilization, barriers to sexual and reproductive health services, and the discourses underpinning reproductive injustice toward women with disabilities. The findings of the study have implications for future disability community-based research, peer-led supports, practice guidelines for professionals, and intersectoral policy provision aiming at supporting the reproductive agency of women with disabilities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".