MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412483078 · doi:10.7191/gmr.1121

What have we lost? Infertility, miscarriage, and disenfranchised grief.

2025· article· en· W4412483078 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueGraphic Medicine Review · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntellectual Property Law
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This comic presents a personal narrative depicting the disenfranchised grief that comes along with infertility and pregnancy loss. The comic became a way to make sense of the relentless cycles of hope and disappointment that characterize infertility. Rather than focusing on the loss of a particular pregnancy, the grief depicted in this work centers on the endless possibility that a child might still be born. It focuses on the cruel optimism of the always possible child and how mourning is delayed for the next medical procedure. The comic explores the disenfranchised grief and psychological toll that infertility imposes, especially within a medical system that narrowly defines success as the birth of a baby and often overlooks the emotional needs of the majority who do not achieve that outcome. It also grapples with existential rupture that occurs when long-held reproductive stories and imagined futures begin to unravel. This work does not offer solutions or closure. Instead, it invites readers into the unresolved and often invisible emotional landscape of infertility.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.011
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.324 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGraphic Medicine ReviewSame topicIntellectual Property LawFrench-language works237,207