MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7008319931

Bodies in a Zone of Indistinction: A History of the Biomedicalization of Pregnancy in Prison
\n

2012· other· en· W7008319931 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilSci-Archive (University of Pittsburgh) · 2012
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrisonQuarter (Canadian coin)AutonomyProclamationPrenatal carePregnancyHealth care
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The United States’ prison systems house more inmates than any other country in the Global North. Since Nixon’s proclamation of a War on Drugs in the 1960s and Ronald Regan’s push to create stricter penalties for drug crimes in the 1980s, prisons have seen an influx of women inmates, with the rate of incarceration increasing six times after this public policy was enacted. To meet the demand, prison systems expanded dramatically and now quarter over 110,000 women prisoners every year—5,000 to 6,000 of whom are pregnant or become pregnant during their incarceration. 
\n
\nIn prison, pregnant women lack the autonomy to choose their healthcare provider, to decide the time they are taken to the prison hospital for delivery, and to raise their infant. Still, because federal law states that prisons must provide medical care to all inmates, pregnant prisoners can expect at least some form of regular checkups and other prenatal care throughout the duration of their pregnancy. In some states across the nation, pregnant prisoners may even be able to take labor and delivery classes, deliver their babies without being shackled to the hospital bed, and-- depending on their “good” behavior-- have the option to stay with their children for a short period in either prison nurseries or residency programs. Through these initiatives, the medical establishment’s encroachment in penitentiaries can be seen as an “advancement” that institutes policy reformations for a more “humane” approach to ushering life into prison space. 
\n
\nRegardless, throughout this “progress” narrative, women’s bodies remain a space for political control and domination in both the spheres of law and medicine. As both spheres fuse and become co-constitutive of each other, Giorgio Agamben writes, “The novelty of modern biopolitics lies in the fact that the biological given is as such immediately political, and the political is as such immediately the biological given.” Likewise, in prison, bodies of pregnant women become zones of indistinction in which both biological and political spheres coalesce and the very material effects of their engagement are made visible. To that end, analysis of selected scientific studies will illuminate the ways in which the authority of science (including medicine and psychology) is co-opted by the medical establishment to make an appeal for more extensive accommodations of pregnant prisoners. Moreover, this paper will argue that the biomedicalization of female criminality in the last three decades has created a space in which certain “liberties” are increasingly afforded to expecting mothers in prison, yet paradoxically this movement also advances the agenda to moralize, discipline, and control pregnant bodies. 
\n

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhilSci-Archive (University of Pittsburgh)French-language works237,207