It’s a privilege to bleed: a human rights analysis of menstrual equity on Canadian university campuses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Menstrual health is a necessary part of the majority of human lives. Menstrual equity refers to a spectrum of biologically necessitated needs, including access to period-management products, education, healthcare, financial resources, and barrier-free access to participation in all aspects of life. Therefore, menstruation is an equity and human rights issue on Canadian university campuses. This paper examines the state of menstrual equity at Canadian universities. This case study analyzes the top ten universities in Canada (according to Maclean’s Reputation Survey, focusing on quality and innovation), to determine which universities have policies, programs, and supports for menstruating students. This research will contribute to a growing field of human rights research advocating for equal access and resources for menstruating students, staff, and faculty alike. This research also prioritizes a gender-inclusive approach, challenging the norms of menstrual equity as female empowerment. The main findings of this research determine that most universities have some form of menstrual product pilot project or program in place, and at least one gender inclusive washroom on campus. Although these initiatives are a positive first step, universities are not doing enough to support their students. A human rights approach argues that until menstrual products are available in every washroom, of all gender identities, menstrual equity cannot be reached. Period supplies that are gate-kept behind a desk (security, student help-centre, etc.) are impractical for the logistics of menstruation, and further out menstruating students to their communities, creating safety challenges for gender diverse menstruators. Further challenges include disposal, considerations for reusable products, and time spent away from class looking for supplies and management strategies.
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 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.046 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".