MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055973928 · doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7491.560-c

Women requesting a second or subsequent abortion should be screened for abuse

2005· article· en· W2055973928 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David Spurgeon

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbortionSexual coercionMedicineCoercion (linguistics)PregnancyObstetricsGynecologyPsychiatryFamily medicineMedical emergencyPoison controlSuicide prevention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Women undergoing an abortion for a second or subsequent time were much more likely than woman undergoing a first abortion to have experienced physical abuse by a male partner, sexual abuse, or coercion, a study in the journal of the Canadian Medical Association shows. The researchers say that these findings show that women presenting for a second or subsequent abortion should be screened for such a history ( CMAJ 2005;172:637-41). Of 1127 women presenting to a regional centre in southwestern Ontario between August 1998 and May 1999 for a termination of pregnancy, 769 (68.2%) were undergoing a first abortion, 260 (23.1%) a second abortion, and 98 (8.7%) a third or subsequent abortion. The participants were …

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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.763
Threshold uncertainty score0.421

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.279 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207