SOGC clinical practice guidelines: Canadian contraception consensus. No. 143 - Part I of 3 February 2004.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To provide guidelines for health-care providers on the use of contraceptive methods to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Outcomes: Overall efficacy of cited contraceptive methods assessing reduction in pregnancy rate risk of infection safety ease of use and side effects; the effect of cited contraceptive methods on sexual health and general well-being; and the cost and availability of cited contraceptive methods in Canada. Evidence: Medline and the Cochrane Database were searched for articles in English on subjects related to contraception sexuality and sexual health from January 1988 to March 2003 in order to update the Report of the Consensus Committee on Contraception published in May-July 1998. Relevant Canadian Government publications and position papers from appropriate health and family planning organizations were also reviewed. Values: The quality of the evidence is rated using the criteria described in the Report of the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination. Recommendations for practice are ranked according to the method described in this Report. (authors)
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".