MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2613410872

Updated WHO Guidance on Safe Abortion: Health and Human Rights

2013· article· en· W2613410872 on OpenAlexaff
Joanna N. Erdman

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbortionHuman rightsHealth carePolitical scienceMedicinePublic relationsLawEngineering ethicsEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since its first publication in 2003, the World Health Organization's “Safe abortion: technical and policy guidance for health systems” has had an influence on abortion policy, law, and practice worldwide. To reflect significant developments in the clinical, service delivery, and human rights aspects of abortion care, the Guidance was updated in 2012. This article reviews select recommendations of the updated Guidance, highlighting 3 key themes that run throughout its chapters: evidence-based practice and assessment, human rights standards, and a pragmatic orientation to safe and accessible abortion care. These themes not only connect the chapters into a coherent whole. They reflect the research and advocacy efforts of a growing field in women's health and human rights.

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)0.000
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 score0.396
Threshold uncertainty score0.540

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.288 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207