Politics, policies, pronatalism, and practice: availability and accessibility of abortion and reproductive health services in Turkey
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
Turkey has maintained liberal contraception and abortion policies since the 1980s. In 2012, the government proposed to restrict abortion; a bill limiting abortion was later drafted but never passed into law. Since the proposed restriction, women have reported difficulty accessing abortion services across Turkey. We aimed to better understand the current availability of abortion and reproductive health services in Istanbul and explore whether access to services has changed since 2012. In 2015, we completed 14 in-depth interviews with women and 11 semi-structured interviews with key informants. We transcribed all interviews and completed content and thematic analyses of the data. Key informants had good knowledge about the political discourse and the current abortion law. In contrast, women were familiar with the political discourse but had mixed information about the current status of abortion and were unsure about the legality of their own abortions. There was consensus that access to services has become more limited in the last five years due to the political climate, thus advocacy to prioritize reproductive health services, and abortion care in particular, in the public health system are needed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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