MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946328415 · doi:10.3138/chr.2018-0082-3

“The Public Is Not Ready for This”: 1969 and the Long Road to Abortion Access

2019· article· en· W2946328415 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Katrina Ackerman, Shannon Stettner

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Historical Review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal Changes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbortionLegislationMilestoneLegislatureHistoriographyPolitical scienceEconomic JusticeLegislative historyLawUnintended consequencesPublic administrationHistoryPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using the fiftieth anniversary of the 1969 omnibus bill as an opportunity to reflect on the impact that legislation had on abortion access and experiences in Canada, we examine key legislative and activist moments in the long history of abortion rights in Canada, beginning with the lead up to the 1969 revision. This analysis helps to assess the uneven impact and unintended consequences of the 1969 legislation. We offer an analysis of the existing historiography of abortion in order to both assess trends and identify areas that require further study. We suggest using a reproductive justice framework to examine abortion-related history and politics. By doing so, we hope scholars will uncover what abortion history might look like if we decentre milestone legislation like the omnibus bill.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.728

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.007
Science and technology studies0.0110.023
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.144
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.172 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Historical ReviewSame topicHistorical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal ChangesFrench-language works237,207