MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1585008341

From Birth Control to Menstrual Control: The Launch of the Extended Oral Contraceptive, "Seasonale"

2004· article· en· W1585008341 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Helen Loshny

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian women's studies · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPillBirth controlFamily planningMenstruationMedical prescriptionPopulationMedicineDeveloped countryFamily medicineGynecologyDemographySociologyResearch methodologyEnvironmental healthNursingInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In September 2003 in a move much debated and discussed in the North American media Barr Laboratories received U.S. FDA approval to release Seasonable on to the prescription drug market. Seasonable is a repackaging of low-dose birth control pills in an extended regimen consisting of 84 straight days of use instead of the previously prescribed 21 days followed by a seven day pill-free interval. Its release gave formal medical approval to the practice of long-term menstrual suppression achieved through continuous birth control pill use--much longer than 84 days in some cases--which has been quietly carried out by thousands of women for a variety of reasons for at least the last two decades. Some of the public discourse surrounding this event has been fuelled by the publication of a book in 1999 by Brazilian gynecologist Dr. Elsimar Coutinho and population scientist Dr. Sheldon Segal entitled Is Menstruation Obsolete? Coutinho and Segals main thesis is that menstruation is useless and harmful to women their families and to society. He argues that menstruation is an evolutionary anomaly which has become an inconvenience and a hassle for women and suggests that those who do not agree with him are misguided and out of date. (excerpt)

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.292

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian women's studiesSame topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207