Bibliographic record
Abstract
Throughout history, women faced with unwanted pregnancies have sought abortion services regardless of religious or legal sanctions.Abortion has been practiced by virtually all communities and cultures since ancient times and was widely accepted, at least during early stages of pregnancy, until the 19 th century when legal barriers to abortion became prevalent in the Western World and gradually spread to other continents through colonization.This shift in attitude was largely due to the threat midwives posed to the economic and social power of the medical establishment.Other social changes, however, also played a significant role in restricting abortion such as the antifeminist backlash, a growing popularity of humanitarian reform particularly surrounding medical practices and nationalistic and xenophobic fears of declining birth rates leading to "race suicide."The criminalization of abortion pushed it underground and put women at great risk of harm and exploitation.Following WWII and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there was a liberalization of abortion laws across the Western World.Due in large part to the efforts of Trudeau's liberal government and Dr. Henry Morgentaler, Canada is one of a small number of countries without a law restricting abortion.Currently, abortion in Canada is considered a medical procedure and is governed by provincial and medical regulations rather than legislative ones.Yet even in a country with no legal restrictions on abortion, access remains a huge issue.A woman's right to reproductive choice is being challenged once again, this time by the pro-life movement, which is based predominantly on moral and religious grounds but also fetal rights.This latest polarization on the issue of abortion is perhaps another historical reflection of the social undercurrents illustrating our changing attitudes and beliefs about sexuality and reproduction.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".