MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ethics of abortion: the arguments for and against

2007· article· en· W2161721720 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Standard · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsRoyal Canadian Navy
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbortionAutonomyLegislationOpposition (politics)Abortion lawSubject (documents)Political scienceLawSociologyMedicineFamily planningPregnancyPoliticsPopulationResearch methodologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In England, Scotland and Wales legislation has facilitated the process of procuring an abortion to the point at which, in 2007, it appears to have been effectively assimilated into contemporary life. However, despite the legal acceptance of abortion it remains an ethically contentious subject. Arguments in favour of, or in opposition to, abortion can arouse vociferous and, on occasions, extreme reactions. At the heart of the abortion debate lie questions concerning rights, autonomy and the way in which society views disability (if a pregnancy is terminated for this reason alone). It is important that health professionals comprehend the basis of the abortion debate, from the perspective of their profession, society as a whole and the individual woman who may have had or is considering an abortion or has been affected by the subject in some way. This article examines some of the key ethical issues concerning abortion.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.669
Threshold uncertainty score0.221

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.380 · 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