MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170392504 · doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2006.07.002

Legal abortion for mental health indications

2006· article· en· W2170392504 on OpenAlexaff
Rebecca J. Cook, Adriana Ortega-Ortiz, Sarah Romans

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsCoalition for Research in Women's HealthPublic Health OntarioOntario Tobacco Research UnitUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthMental distressAbortionDistressPovertyPsychiatryMental health lawPsychologyMedicinePregnancyClinical psychologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Where legal systems allow therapeutic abortion to preserve women's mental health, practitioners often lack access to mental health professionals for making critical diagnoses or prognoses that pregnancy or childcare endangers patients' mental health. Practitioners themselves must then make clinical assessments of the impact on their patients of continued pregnancy or childcare. The law requires only that practitioners make assessments in good faith, and by credible criteria. Mental disorder includes psychological distress or mental suffering due to unwanted pregnancy and responsibility for childcare, or, for instance, anticipated serious fetal impairment. Account should be taken of factors that make patients vulnerable to distress, such as personal or family mental health history, factors that may precipitate mental distress, such as loss of personal relationships, and factors that may maintain distress, such as poor education and marginal social status. Some characteristics of patients may operate as both precipitating and maintaining factors, such as poverty and lack of social support.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.003

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Gynecology & ObstetricsSame topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207