MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2948354309 · doi:10.1136/bmj.l4118

Abortion: US “global gag rule” is killing women and girls, says report

2019· article· en· W2948354309 on OpenAlexaff
Zosia Kmietowicz

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsVancouver Biotech (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbortionMedicineComputer sciencePregnancyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A US government policy that blocks federal funding for non-governmental organisations that provide or support abortion is killing women, a new report says, because they are being excluded from a range of essential sexual and reproductive health services and information and turning to unsafe abortions. The “global gag rule” rule prohibits foreign non-governmental organisations that receive US global health funding from providing legal abortion services or referrals and also bars advocacy for abortion law reform. The rule, first implemented by the Reagan administration and rescinded by subsequent Democratic presidents, was reinstated and expanded by Donald Trump when he took office in 2017. It now affects an estimated $9bn (£7bn; €8bn) of US global health assistance. Two years on, an assessment of services in Kenya, Nepal, Nigeria, and South Africa has found “irrefutable evidence” that the gag rule was “depriving women and girls and other marginalised populations of essential information and services,” with devastating consequences.1 Vanesa Rios, who wrote the report for the US based International Women’s Health Coalition, told a press briefing at the Women …

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.372

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207