MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087344122 · doi:10.3928/00904481-20130128-08

Contraception for Adolescents

2013· review· en· W2087344122 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sophia Yen, Susanne Martin

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Annals · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMEDLINEFamily medicineGynecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CME EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES: 1.Identify and explain the four currently available methods of emergency contraception.2.Discuss the risk and benefits of intrauterine devices as a first-line option for contraception in adolescents.3.Review strategies for explaining the most common contraceptive methods to an adolescent. The US has the highest pregnancy rate of any industrialized nation, approximately twice that of Canada, four times that of France, and eight times that of Japan or Italy.1 In recent years, the rate has declined, partially due to delayed coitarche (age of onset of vaginal sexual intercourse) but mainly due to greater use of contraception.2 Per the 2011 Youth Risk Behavior Survey (a national survey of about 15,000 youth in schools), 33% of high school freshmen, 44% of sophomores, 53% of juniors, and 63% of seniors have had vaginal sexual intercourse. To prevent unplanned and unwanted teenage pregnancies, which have negative consequences on a teenager's health and future, pediatricians must be able to provide birth control or at least know where to refer their patients in need.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.186

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0560.023

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 head0.154
GPT teacher head0.433
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 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

Citations12
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric AnnalsSame topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207