In the wake of the <i>Dobbs</i> decision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In August 2025, the editors of American Ethnologist interviewed anthropologists Khiara M. Bridges and Angel M. Foster about reproductive justice, activism, and scholarship in the wake of the US Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022), which eliminated the federally protected right to abortion in the United States. Bridges and Foster both have forthcoming books that discuss reproductive rights and justice from different angles: Foster's book on mifepristone considers the terrain of access to abortion technology around the world, while Bridges's book examines the efforts of Black women to stay alive during pregnancy in the context of racial disparities in maternal mortality in the US. The interview ranged beyond abortion and maternity, covering the relationship between science and politics; the intersection of race, gender, and health; tactics for overcoming feelings of despair over the entrenchment of suffering in American ideologies of state and citizenship; and the implications of reframing health care as a person‐centered enterprise.
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 | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.029 | 0.035 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.005 |
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".