MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2604898699

Emergency contraceptive pills: medical and service delivery guidelines. 3rd ed.

2012· article· en· W2604898699 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
James Trussell, Raymond Eg, Kelly Cleland, Andrew Black, Édith Guilbert, Dustin Costescu, Sheila Dunn, William Fisher, Sari Kives, Melissa Mirosh, Norman Wv, Helen Pymar, Robert L. Reid, Roy G, Hannah Varto, Ashley Waddington, M-S Wagner, Whelan Am, Jianlong Yuan, Wangsheng Zhao, Mi Yan, Qingyi Zhu, Qin G, Jianhui Qiu, J Zhang, Duijkers Ij, Doris Heger-Mahn, Dominique Drouin, Enrico Colli, Sven O. Skouby, Cristián Jesam, Leila Cochón, Salvatierra Am, A. Williams, Nathalie Kapp, Delphine Levy-Gompel, Brache, Mahmoud F. Fathalla

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEmergency contraceptionPillFamily planningIntrauterine deviceDeveloped countryService (business)Medical emergencyService delivery frameworkFamily medicineGynecologyPopulationNursingResearch methodologyEnvironmental health
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Consortium has produced these medical and service delivery guidelines about oral emergency contraceptive pills to assist family planning programs and providers in assuring that the women they serve can use these regimens effectively and safely. This document reflects the latest available evidence and has been reviewed by internationally recognized reproductive health experts. Local programs are welcome to adapt these guidelines as needed to comply with national or other requirements. These guidelines do not discuss the use of the copper-bearing intrauterine device for emergency contraception. This device is the most effective emergency contraceptive option and should be offered to women when appropriate. (excerpt)

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.365
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations13
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology CanadaSame topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207