MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017367553 · doi:10.1080/07399330802179155

Elements of the Menstrual Suppression Debate

2008· review· en· W2017367553 on OpenAlexaff
Christine L. Hitchcock

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Care For Women International · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsVancouver Coastal Health Research InstituteUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouver Coastal Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPillMenstruationScope (computer science)MedicineFamily planningAlternative medicineDeveloped countryFamily medicineGynecologyPsychologyPopulationResearch methodologyNursingEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article I review common arguments and frameworks used by participants in the debate about extended use of combined hormonal contraceptives (CHCs; usually oral contraceptive pills) for menstrual suppression. I examine the way in which menstruation is described and the scope of risks considered. I consider the role of the pharmaceutical industry, personal and clinical experience, and concerns about the contraceptive effectiveness of contraceptive formulations with lower doses. I also address public consequences of the debate, including the possibility of inciting a pill scare, and increasing product awareness and off-label practice.

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 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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.540

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.410
Teacher spread0.369 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations15
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Care For Women InternationalSame topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207