We need to talk about miscarriage: strategies and tensions in advocacy on early pregnancy loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The most common complication of pregnancy, miscarriage is often a difficult and even traumatic experience, structured by gendered, racialized, and socio-economic inequalities. Historically, there has been very little public discussion or advocacy around miscarriage, yet in recent years diverse forms of miscarriage-related advocacy have emerged, promoting increased awareness and the adoption of new laws and policies on issues such as testing, treatment, and leave following a miscarriage. These developments remain under-examined. This article helps to address this gap, laying the foundation for further investigation of miscarriage as a critical concern for reproductive politics. It does so first by mapping miscarriage advocacy in two key contexts, the United Kingdom and the United States. Second, drawing on social movement framing theories, it analyzes the discourse deployed by key organizations to challenge perceptions of miscarriage as natural, inevitable, and apolitical, and advance advocacy goals. Third, it probes tensions in these discursive strategies, including regarding 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.
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 | 0.023 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".