What the New Liberal Government Should Know About "Reproductive Freedom andJustice in New Brunswick"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What the new Liberal government should know is that citizenship rights don’t admit half measures. New Brunswick women do not experience a level playing field when it comes to reproductive freedoms and justice. In 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada declared unconstitutional the requirement that women seeking abortions must first obtain the approval of a committee of three physicians. The Court identified the restrictions and delays engendered by the committee process to be an infringement on women’s security of the person, guaranteed by Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Long after the Supreme Court struck down the criminal code provisions restricting abortion, women in New Brunswick and PEI continue to face significant and arbitrary barriers in accessing abortion services. Although New Brunswick women and activists have been trying to bring national attention to this issue for some time, and have worked for decades to eliminate barriers to access, it was the announcement of the Fredericton Morgentaler clinic’s closure in the summer of 2014 that plunged New Brunswick’s unique legal and constitutional situation into the spotlight.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".