Today's evidence, tomorrow's agenda: Implementation of strategies to improve global reproductive health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Alliance for Women's Health deliberated on critical gaps and emerging issues related to women's health, focusing on contraception, safe abortion care, HIV, and cervical cancer prevention. Despite the health, socioeconomic, and development benefits of family planning, up to 222 million women have an unmet need for modern contraception. The number of unsafe abortions increased globally, 98% of which occurred in low-resource countries. Fragmentation of services for HIV and cervical cancer prevention and treatment fail to maximize opportunities to reach women within reproductive, maternal, and child health services. The FIGO 2012 PreCongress Workshop elaborated the role of societies of obstetricians-gynecologists in implementation of actions to increase access to modern methods of contraception to help individuals meet family planning intentions. Human rights principles underpin the imperative to ensure equitable access to a wide range of modern methods of contraception. The role of task shifting/sharing in different models of service delivery was elaborated. Actions from the International Conference on Population and Development on safe abortion care and integration of effective contraception were reaffirmed. A call was made to increase access to integrated HIV and cervical cancer prevention, screening, and management. Cross-cutting strategic approaches to accelerate progress include evidence-based information to stakeholders and continued education in these areas at all levels of training. A call was made to advocate for a budget line item for sexual and reproductive health, including family planning and engaging the demand side of family planning, while involving men to enhance uptake and continuation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.050 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 0.006 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".