MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012041125 · doi:10.2105/ajph.2012.301154

Abortion in Sri Lanka: The Double Standard

2013· article· en· W2012041125 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Public Health · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Ontario
FundersUnited Nations Population Fund
KeywordsAbortionSri lankaUnsafe abortionOpposition (politics)Abortion lawDecriminalizationFamily planningLawMedicinePolitical scienceEconomic growthEnvironmental healthSocioeconomicsPregnancySociologyPopulationResearch methodologyPoliticsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Sri Lanka, women do not have access to legal abortion except under life-saving circumstances. Clandestine abortion services are, however, available and quite accessible. Although safe specialist services are available to women who can afford them, others access services under unsafe and exploitative conditions. At the time of this writing, a draft bill that will legalize abortion in instances of rape, incest, and fetal abnormalities awaits approval, amid opposition. In this article, I explore the current push for legal reform as a solution to unsafe abortion. Although a welcome effort, this amendment alone will be insufficient to address the public health consequences of unsafe abortion in Sri Lanka because most women seek abortions for other reasons. Much broader legal and policy reform will be required.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score0.297

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.315 · 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