“I kind of feel like sometimes I am shoving it under the carpet”: Documenting women’s experiences with post-abortion support in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Abortion has been available without criminal restriction in Canada since 1988, and approximately 33 000 terminations take place in Ontario each year. Objectives: This study aimed to explore women’s expressed desire for post-abortion support services, document the priorities expressed by women in seeking post-abortion support, and identify actionable strategies to improve post-abortion support services in Ontario. Methods: Between 2012 and 2014 we conducted in-depth, open-ended interviews with 60 Anglophone women from across Ontario who had recently had an abortion. We aimed to rigorously explore the compounding issues of age and geography on women’s abortion experiences. We analyzed our data for content and themes and reported on the findings related to post-abortion support. Results: One third of our participants expressed a desire for post-abortion support, yet few were able to access a timely, affordable, non-directive service. Women were uncertain about how to find services; most contacted a provider recommended by the clinic or searched online. Women were enthusiastic about a talkline format citing anonymity and convenience as the main advantages. Conclusion: Our results suggest that exploring ways to expand post-abortion support services in Ontario is warranted. A talkline format could provide an anonymous, convenient, non-judgmental, and non-directive way to address this unmet need.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".