Bibliographic record
Abstract
Papers p 131 The debate about the safety of third generation oral contraceptives shows no sign of fading away. Since it began in 1995 the main participants have been epidemiologists and clinical pharmacologists. There has been little input from the clinicians who prescribe oral contraceptives or from the women who use them. About 80% of British women use the pill at some time between the ages of 16 and 24.1 It was this age group that paid the price of the October 1995 scare, prompted by the publicity surrounding the announcement of the Committee on Safety of Medicines that third generation oral contraceptives had a higher risk of inducing venous thromboembolism. In the first quarter of 1996 in England and Wales there were 6198 more abortions than in the previous quarter (a 16% rise), and the increase continued more slowly until 1998.2 Doctors who counsel women with unplanned pregnancy are still angry about the amount of human misery caused by information mismanagement. The 1995 scare arose from three studies that reported that the risk of venous thromboembolism among users of pills containing levonorgestrel was half that of pills containing desogestrel or gestodene—the so called “third generation” progestogens. Over the following five years, …
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".