MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411073256 · doi:10.1111/japp.70025

Pregnancy, Caregiving, and a Supposed Obligation to Gestate

2025· article· en· W4411073256 on OpenAlex
Christie Hartley, Ashley Lindsley‐Kim

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Philosophy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObligationPregnancySociologyPhilosophyPsychologyLawPolitical scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Many people – including many feminists – believe both of the following: (i) abortion is morally permissible regardless of the moral status of the fetus (at least for most of a pregnancy) and (ii) members of society have a shared, moral obligation to provide care for dependents. Yet it has been argued that the shared, moral obligation of members of society to care for dependents entails that women may be morally obligated to gestate unwanted fetuses. Central to this argument is that fetal dependency is relevantly similar to (other) persons' dependency on care and that pregnancy itself is a kind of caregiving. We think this argument is erroneous and politically dangerous. To expose its faults, we engage in a philosophical analysis of pregnancy: how to understand it, how it differs from caregiving, how it is inherently risky, how fetal development is by its nature invasive, and why all this matters for the ethics and politics of abortion.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.392
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.280 · 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