MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2368035208

The Three European-American Countries' Success: How Could Vasectomy Become the Popular Voluntary Choice

2015· article· en· W2368035208 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wang Xiang-xia

Bibliographic record

VenueFunu yanjiu luncong · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMale Reproductive Health Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVasectomyFamily planningAbstinenceDeveloped countryGender studiesMedicinePopulationPolitical scienceDemographyPsychologySociologyResearch methodologyLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It went through two phases for vasectomy to be widely accepted among men in Canada, United Kingdom and the United States over the past two hundred years in which there were two transitions in the use of contraceptives and two waves of gender equality movements. During the first phase in which the interaction between the first contraceptive transition and the first gender equality movement took place from the end of 18 th to the beginning of 20 th century, men's use of contraception and masculinities went from being in a contradictory relationship to that of integration. Men took contraceptive responsibility by way of traditional means including sexual abstinence and continence. The second phase began in the 1960 s and continues to date. During this period, the second contraceptive transition integrates with the second gender equality movement. Though the governments have not specifically intervened, the availability of high quality medical services enables men to voluntarily take contraceptive responsibilities by choosing vasectomy, and this has become a new characteristic of masculinities.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.006
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFunu yanjiu luncongSame topicMale Reproductive Health StudiesFrench-language works237,207