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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.366
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.028
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations27
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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