Beyond Legal: A Feminist Intersectional Analysis of the Policy Landscape Shaping Indigenous Women’s Access to Abortion Services in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis locates proven barriers in access to abortion services for Indigenous women in Canada within the policy landscape. It points to opportunities for policy reform to improve access and ultimately, reproductive justice for this population. Critical policy studies and feminist and intersectionality-based policy analysis theory were used to assess documents determined through background research to form the policy landscape. This extended to their design, text, and implementation. Studied federal-level documents included the Indian Act, the Constitution Act, the Indian Health Policy, the Health Transfer Policy, the Canada Health Act, and the Non-Insured Health Benefits Program. Manitoba was assessed as a case study of provincial-level policy given its high proportion of Indigenous residents and evidenced issues in access for this population. This is research that has not been conducted before. It makes a valuable contribution to the literature at a time in which significant political attention is being paid to the subject of abortion access in Canada and to the federal framework for Indigenous health care.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.040 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".