Beyond Complacency: Challenges (and Opportunities) for Reproductive Justice in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report draws on academic and grey literature research, key informant interviews, and individual reflections to outline reproductive justice issues in Canada today. We highlight broad barriers and areas for law and policy reform in Canada relevant to all areas of reproductive justice, and provide suggestions we heard about what improvements could be made.The issues identified here are far from exhaustive. The content of this report is informed by the positionality of the author and of LEAF. LEAF is a national non-profit organization, with a national office in Toronto, Ontario, and 11 volunteer branches located in five provinces. We are a settler organization. While our mandate now explicitly includes non-binary people and all trans people, much of our work has been focused on cis women's rights. In addition, LEAF focuses on systems change, and does not engage in direct service delivery or front-line work. We do not work directly in communities, but instead benefit from the expertise and insights of organizations active in their communities, academics, and legal practitioners in carrying out our work. This report has also been shaped by the framing of the research questions, and the organizations and individuals involved in interviews and reflections.With this work, however, we aim to continue the conversation, and provide a springboard for advocacy efforts.This report will advance LEAF's Reproductive Justice Project, providing a foundation on which LEAF branches can advocate for important legal and policy changes at the provincial and territorial levels. Through this advocacy, we will strive to move ever closer to realizing reproductive justice in Canada.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".