MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1948695229

Our Bodies Are Our Own: Connecting Abortion and Social Policy

2014· article· en· W1948695229 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sonya Bourgeois

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbortionSupreme courtPolitical scienceLegislationCriminal codeAbortion lawReproductive rightsGender studiesLawReproductive justiceAutonomySociologyReproductive healthHumanitiesFamily planningCriminal lawPopulationPregnancyDemographyArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has been 25 years since abortion was decriminalized by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1988, as the court struck down Section 251 of the Criminal Code of Canada, and abortion was made available for women to access without the consent of a doctor. This amendment to the Criminal Code of Canada was a significant step for women, who were granted autonomy in reproductive health decisions. While women are able to access abortion in Canada, pro-life advocates continue to attempt to limit reproductive options through anti-abortion legislation and advocacy. Through critical discourse analysis, Canadian pro-life discourse has been examined to understand the strategies used to limit women’s sexual health choices. This study has identified four themes, The Fetus has Rights, Abortion is Traumatic, Women are First and Foremost Mothers, and Women do not Really Need Abortion that are used to present a narrative about femininity, reproductive health choices, and abortion. Through understanding pro-life discourse and bringing abortion access into social policy, we can work to ensure that women continue to have access to abortion in Canada. Résumé

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.921
Threshold uncertainty score0.710

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0350.067
Scholarly communication0.0190.006
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.325 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207