MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144874121 · doi:10.1177/1049732310362983

Social Origin of Contraceptive Counseling Practices by Male Doctors in Mexico

2010· article· en· W2144874121 on OpenAlexaff
Joaquina Erviti, Itzel A. Sosa Sánchez, Roberto Castro

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Health Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMale Reproductive Health Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersUnited Nations Population Fund
KeywordsVasectomyFamily planningMedicineFamily medicinePrestigePublic healthPerspective (graphical)Reproductive healthQualitative researchPopulationPsychologyNursingResearch methodologySociologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contraceptive counseling by physicians plays a decisive role in the contraceptive choices of their patients. We studied male physicians' contraceptive counseling and preferences in Mexico from a gender perspective. Specifically, through in-depth interviews with 31 male physicians working for public health institutions in Mexico, we examined reproductive health providers' contraceptive practices and perceptions about men's roles and responsibilities in reproduction. Through an interpretative analysis we identified the social processes involved in shaping contraceptive preferences. Of special importance are institutional and professional factors-related to prestige and economic concerns-framed by gender determinants which hinder the incorporation of practices that might contribute to gender equality in reproductive health. Thus, female contraceptive methods are preferred by physicians, and use of male contraceptive methods, especially vasectomy, is discouraged by them.

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)0.001
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.650
GPT teacher head0.728
Teacher spread0.078 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations18
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQualitative Health ResearchSame topicMale Reproductive Health StudiesFrench-language works237,207