Expanding access to contraceptive choice in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Every woman should possess the power to decide whether or not she chooses to become pregnant at any given point in her life. Unplanned pregnancy may have a huge impact on a woman’s health, economic, and social well-being, and yet an estimated 41% of pregnancies worldwide are unintentional. There are a multitude of reversible contraceptive options available and many factors that contribute to a woman’s decision regarding which method is right for her. Efficacy, effort and side effect profile are important considerations and vary widely between methods. Surprisingly, condoms and the oral contraceptive pill, which have relatively high typical use failure rates at 21% and 9% respectively and require frequent user action, are the most popular reversible contraceptive options in Canada. In contrast, intrauterine contraceptive devices, with failure rates of <0.8% and almost no user action, have extremely poor uptake. Recognizing that the variation of side effect profiles will also impact use, this disconnect between efficacy, effort and use suggests that forces beyond the intrinsic merits of a contraceptive system play a role in these decisions. Cost and accessibility can both inhibit the use of intrauterine systems, which are a large upfront investment and require physician insertion. Peers, the media and providers all influence contraceptive decision-making and may also contribute their own bias. We advocate for providing public funding for all contraceptive options as well as engaging in open discussion with both patients and the public to improve our delivery of reproductive health care.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 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".