MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111687701 · doi:10.2105/ajph.2008.134684

Medication Abortion in Canada: A Right-to-Health Perspective

2008· review· en· W2111687701 on OpenAlexaffabout
Joanna N. Erdman, Amy Grenon, Leigh Harrison-Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Public Health · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbortionMedicineUnavailabilityMisoprostolFamily medicineMifepristoneHealth careGovernment (linguistics)CovenantPregnancyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The right to health under the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, to which Canada is a signatory, entitles women to available, accessible, and acceptable abortion care. Abortion care in Canada currently fails this standard. Medication abortion (the use of drugs to terminate a pregnancy) could improve abortion care in Canada, but its potential remains unrealized. This is in part attributable to the unavailability of mifepristone, the safest and most effective pharmaceutical for medication abortion. Given that it could improve abortion care, we investigated why mifepristone remains unapproved in Canada, whether its unavailability is attributable to government inaction, and whether Canada is therefore failing to fulfill its obligations under the right to health.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations22
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Public HealthSame topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207