MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2394690227

Abortion in Australia: access versus protest.

2004· article· en· W2394690227 on OpenAlex
Rebecca Elizabeth Dean, Susie Allanson

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Human Rights and Reproductive Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntimidationLegislationHarassmentAbortionGuard (computer science)LawPolitical scienceLegislature
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Currently in Australia anti-choice protesters' right to freedom of speech and freedom to protest is privileged over a woman's right to privacy and to access a health service safely, free from harassment, intimidation and obstruction. This article considers how this situation is played out daily at one Victorian abortion-providing clinic. The Fertility Control Clinic was thrown into the spotlight after the murder of its security guard by an anti-choice crusader in July 2001. Australian common law appears not to offer women protection from anti-choice protesters. By contrast, United States and Canadian "bubble" legislation sits comfortably with key constitutional rights. It would be a useful development if Australian governments passed legislation to ensure the rights, wellbeing and safety of Australian women accessing health services. Such legislation would be another step away from the misogynistic and androcentric values once central to our legislative framework.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.909
Threshold uncertainty score0.885

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.241 · 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