MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6959733955 · doi:10.11575/prism/27381

Pondering periods: Young women talk about menstruation in the age of menstrual suppression

2014· other· en· W6959733955 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePRISM (University of Calgary) · 2014
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicHibiscus Plant Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMenstruationMedicalizationBirth controlMenstrual cycleFraming (construction)MenarchePregnancyReproductive medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seasonale, a birth control pill designed and marketed expressly to suppress menstruation, has been on the Canadian market since 2007 yet ‘menstruation by choice’ remains a controversial issue. This dissertation investigates menstrual suppression from the perspectives of experts in the field of women’s health and those of young women as a target group for this practice. It also explores the broader question of what everyday menstrual life looks like for young women in this time when menstruating seems to be on the wane. Utilizing a history of medicalization to contextualize the current state of affairs, this thesis draws upon insights from practice theory to map the nuances and complexities of menstruation and menstrual suppression using data from policy documents and focus group interviews. The parameters of the menstrual suppression debate are laid out as presented by the Society for Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada and their counterparts, the Society for Menstrual Cycle Research. In framing what they see as the key issues of concern, these experts reveal disparate underlying assumptions about the menstrual cycle itself, the technology of the birth control pill, women’s decision making, and what constitutes risk. The women’s views about menstrual suppression are far from straight forward, with risks associated with pregnancy detection, future fertility, and the pill’s interference with ‘nature’ on their list of concerns. They speak back to the experts, reconfiguring the parameters of the issue and revealing considerable skill in maneuvering the complexities of the choice-making terrain. In the everyday of young women’s lives, menstruation involves considerable work, not only during one’s period but also in terms of getting ready for it. In their talk about selecting a menstrual management product, participants draw upon interpretive frameworks to do with economics, the environment, health, hygiene, and growing up. In terms of managing menstrual bleeding they describe engaging in numerous routine practices in order to hide the evidence of their periods from both males and sometimes females in their lives. This work is compulsory, complicated and context-dependent, with some spheres of activity particularly revealing of high stakes consequences of failure. More broadly, they both reinforce and challenge notions of menstruating bodies as abject in male normative space, and balance attending to menstruation against erasing the fact of its existence as they describe their embodied menstrual routines.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.341
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.291 · 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