Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the availability of contraception in Canada, almost half of pregnancies are unintended and account for approximately 95% of elective, induced abortions. Nearly one-third of Canadian women will access an elective abortion in their lifetime and 30-40% of these women will access at least one further termination. Although contraceptive counselling is generally provided as part of abortion care, there is a paucity of research about the effectiveness of peri-abortive counselling methods or women’s experiences with this care. This research was designed to better understand peri-abortive contraceptive decision-making through the lens of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework and addressed gaps in previous research. The thesis was completed in two parts, a literature review and the first Canadian qualitative study on this topic. Unlike most of the available research that focused on typical outcomes such as contraceptive uptake or continuation, the data from the interpretive descriptive study described women’s informational needs, desired supports, and preferences for peri-abortive contraceptive care. The literature review described the current research and the findings from the qualitative study demonstrated that Canadian women’s experiences with peri-abortive contraceptive care are similar to those in studies published in other countries. This thesis contributes to the limited body of knowledge in understanding what women need and want when receiving contraceptive care as part of abortion services.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".