Post-abortion syndrome: reinventing abortion as a social problem
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Why do the same social problems emerge in different societies? Unlike traditional sociological explanations, which argue that the structural and cultural causes of social problems are to be found within different societies, the chapters in this collection examine the role played by external diffusion in the construction of social problems. Claims that appear in one country spread to other nations through various channels, ranging from interpersonal contacts among claimsmakers, to mass media coverage, to folklore. Diffusion of claims is possible, but by no means inevitable; a claim may be adopted in some countries but be ignored in others. Often, diffusion involves reconstructing social problems to fit the concerns of those in the countries adopting the claims. Various chapters in this collection examine the diffusion of particular social problems between the United States and such countries as Britain, Canada, Japan, and Austria, as well as among the nations of Europe. Topics include such social problems as post-abortion syndrome, road rage, gun violence, bullying, sexual abuse, youth cultures, and organ thefts, as well as such social policies as sexual harassment law, adoption of the metric system, and child welfare. The effect of How Claims Spread is to expand the constructionist orientation by raising new questions about how social problems emerge and evolve in different nations linked by political, economic, social, and media ties.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it