Arguing the case: Committing pregnant substance abusers to compulsory care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reitan, T. (2016). Arguing the case: Committing pregnant substance abusers to compulsory care. The International Journal Of Alcohol And Drug Research, 5(3), 131-139. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.7895/ijadr.v5i3.219Aims: To analyse how social services relate to compulsory care legislation in applications for compulsory care for substance abuse in cases involving pregnant women, given that such commitments cannot be made solely for the sake of the fetus/unborn child.Design: Applications for compulsory care to administrative courts involving pregnant women categorized according to how the pregnancy was presented or emphasized.Setting: Compulsory care for substance abuse in Sweden.Participants: 116 cases involving 107 individuals who were pregnant at the time of application for commitment to compulsory care between 2000 and 2009.Findings: In 43% of the cases the risks for both the woman and the fetus’/child’s health was emphasized. In 28% of the cases the applications were primarily for the sake of the fetus/child. In 17% of the cases the pregnancy was mentioned in a neutral manner, while in 8% of the cases the fact that the woman was abusing substances during pregnancy was presented as an indication of the severity of the problem.Conclusions: References were commonly made to the interests of the woman and the fetus/child as an entity, but social services also openly claimed the need for commitment primarily for the sake of the child. Arguments also mirrored the debate when legislation was first introduced; for example, that substance abuse during pregnancy is a clear indication of how serious the problem is, and how this situation may be hazardous to the woman’s mental health should she become the cause of severe and irrevocable harm to her child.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".