MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Persistence of Induced Abortion in Cuba: Exploring the Notion of an “Abortion Culture”

2009· article· en· W2054188592 on OpenAlexaff
Danièle Bélanger, Andrea Flynn

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Family Planning · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDemographic Trends and Gender Preferences
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbortionFertilitySkepticismPopulationDemographyFocus groupMedicineFamily planningGender studiesSociologyPregnancyResearch methodology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cuba's annual induced abortion rate persistently ranks among the highest in the world, and abortion plays a prominent role in Cuban fertility regulation despite widespread contraceptive prevalence and state promotion of modern contraceptives. We explore this phenomenon using the concept of an "abortion culture," typically used in reference to Soviet and post-Soviet countries. We synthesize existing literature to provide a historical account of abortion and contraception in Cuba. We also provide a qualitative analysis of abortion and contraceptive use based on in-depth interviews conducted in 2005 in Havana with 24 women who have had an abortion and 10 men whose partners have had an abortion. Information gained from a focus-group discussion with medical professionals also informed the study. Our four principal findings are: (a) longstanding awareness of abortion, (b) the view of abortion as a personal decision, (c) the influence of economic constraints on the decision to induce an abortion, and (d) general skepticism toward contraceptives. We discuss our results on abortion in Cuba in relation to the notion of social diffusion, an approach commonly used to explain the spread of fertility control throughout a population.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.347
Threshold uncertainty score0.690

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.359
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.059 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations106
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in Family PlanningSame topicDemographic Trends and Gender PreferencesFrench-language works237,207