Reproducción y violencia sistémica en la ciencia ficción británica contemporánea: Intrusion (2012), The Growing Season (2017) y The Birth of Love (2010)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Históricamente en las sociedades patriarcales, las mujeres han sido excluidas de sus procesos sexuales y reproductivos, desde los orígenes de las prácticas biomédicas y anatómicas hasta el uso de las tecnologías reproductivas más avanzadas. En este artículo se analizarán tres novelas británicas contemporáneas de ciencia ficción y la representación de la exclusión de la mujer en tres campos principales de la sexualidad: el control de la sexualidad femenina y la reproducción en Intrusion (2012), de Ken MacLeod; la gestación en The Growing Season (2017), de Helen Sedwick, y el parto en The Birth of Love (2010), de Joanna Kavenna. Historically, in patriarchal societies women have been excluded from their sexual and reproductive processes, from the origins of biomedical and anatomical practices to the use of the latest reproductive technologies. In this article three contemporary British science fiction novels will be analysed, as well as the representation of the exclusion of women in three main fields of sexuality: the control of female sexuality and reproduction in Ken MacLeod’s Intrusion (2012); gestation in Helen Sedwick’s The Growing Season (2017) and childbirth in Joanna Kavenna’s The Birth of Love (2010).
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".