MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042150593 · doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2004.04.001

Safe abortion: WHO technical and policy guidance

2004· article· en· W2042150593 on OpenAlexaff
Rebecca J. Cook, Bernard M. Dickens, Mihai Horga

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbortionVacuum aspirationUnsafe abortionAbortion lawFamily planningMedicineDeveloped countryInjusticeIncomplete AbortionPolitical scienceLawBusinessEnvironmental healthMisoprostolPopulationPregnancyResearch methodology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2003, the World Health Organization published its well referenced handbook Safe Abortion: Technical and Policy Guidance for Health Systems to address the estimated almost 20 million induced abortions each year that are unsafe, imposing a burden of approximately 67 thousand deaths annually. It is a global injustice that 95% of unsafe abortions occur in developing countries. The focus of guidance is on abortion procedures that are lawful within the countries in which they occur, noting that in almost all countries, the law permits abortion to save a woman's life. The guidance treats unsafe abortion as a public health challenge, and responds to the problem through strategies concerning improved clinical care for women undergoing procedures, and the appropriate placement of necessary services. Legal and policy considerations are explored, and annexes present guidance to further reading, international consensus documents on safe abortion, and on manual vacuum aspiration and post-abortion contraception.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.145

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0180.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.017

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.324 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Gynecology & ObstetricsSame topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207