MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065928212 · doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2010.02.002

Unethical female stereotyping in reproductive health

2010· article· en· W2065928212 on OpenAlexaff
Rebecca J. Cook, Simone Cusack, Bernard M. Dickens

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbortionLegislationEconomic JusticeHealth careMedicineSocial psychologyReproductive healthReproductive rightsLawPsychologyPopulationPregnancyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stereotypes are generalized preconceptions defining individuals by group categories into which they are placed. Women have become stereotyped as homemakers and mothers, with the negative effect of precluding them from other roles and functions. Legislation and judicial constructions show a history, and often a continuing practice, of confining women to these stereotypical functions. In access to reproductive and sexual health care, for instance, women's requests have been professionally subject to approval of their husbands, fathers or comparable males. Choice of abortion is particularly significant, because it embeds moral values. Women's capacity to act as responsible moral agents is denied by stereotypical attitudes shown by legislators, judges, heads of religious denominations, and healthcare providers who consider women incapable of exercising responsible moral choice. These attitudes violate ethical requirements of treating patients with respect and equal justice. They can also result in violations of human rights laws that prohibit discrimination against women.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.024
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.336 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations27
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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