The Politics of âChoiceâ: Canadian Feminism and the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies developed rapidly in Canada after the birth of world’s first “test tube baby,” Louise Brown, in 1978. Canadian feminists, propelled by the women’s health movement, perceived these technologies as a threat to women’s control over their bodies, the gains made to redefine the identity “woman” against the biological tradition of “mother,” and against the safety and freedom of women based on race, disability and class. In response to the lobby efforts of the women’s movement under the Canadian Coalition for a Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies, the Mulroney government established a commission in 1989 to study the medical, legal, and social implications these technologies would have on Canadian society.\nThrough a qualitative analysis of manuscript and printed sources, this thesis explores the debate surrounding new reproductive technologies (NRTs) before and after the mandate of the Royal Commission (1989 to 1993). It discusses the views and positions of some of the key stakeholders such as the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, the Canadian Medical Association, the DisAbled Women’s Network, as well as adds the voice of infertile women through the Infertility Awareness Association of Canada.\nThis thesis also examines the controversy and discontent created by the Commission’s dismissal of several members, by the management’s style of its Chair, and by the final report’s narrow scope. In the end, the reaction to the report was one of considerable disappointment amongst all major stakeholders, starting with NAC, which claimed that its voice had not been heard. At the same time, the debate over NRTs illustrates NAC’s ongoing internal problems as it faced the challenge of “identity politics.”
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 | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.058 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".