MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2336387607

A Canadian Perspective on Mifepristone (RU-486) and Abortion Services

2016· article· en· W2336387607 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cynthia Chan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbortionDilation and curettageIncomplete AbortionVacuum aspirationMedicineMifepristoneMisoprostolMedical abortionFamily planningCurettageFamily medicinePregnancyMedical emergencyPopulationSurgeryEnvironmental health
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The provision of safe abortion services remains a worldwide problem. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that in 2008 there were approximately 22 million unsafe abortions. In an era when women are increasingly able to make their own decisions, Canada will soon have the only medication for first-trimester abortions recommended by the WHO available. Medical abortion allows women to induce an early abortion through the use of drugs rather than undergoing suction aspiration or a dilation and curettage (D & C). In order to be eligible, patients must be certain they want termination, be less than 9 weeks gestational age, be able to understand instructions and follow-up, and willing to have a D & C if required. This would allow for improvements from the perspective of both the patient and physician; an effective medical option would provide more patient-centred care whereby women can regain some control and privacy for their decisions and providers can redistribute their operating room time to be utilized for other surgeries. The hope is that Canada can uneventfully join the majority of the developed world by implementing use of this useful drug.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score0.970

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0130.006
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0100.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.002

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207