MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3003052349 · doi:10.3386/w26662

The Economic Consequences of Being Denied an Abortion

2020· report· en· W3003052349 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Miller, Laura Wherry, Diana Greene Foster

Bibliographic record

VenueNational Bureau of Economic Research · 2020
Typereport
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentCalifornia Center for Population Research, University of California, Los AngelesWilliam and Flora Hewlett Foundation
KeywordsAbortionPsychologyEconomicsPregnancyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper evaluates the economic consequences of being denied an abortion due to gestational limits. We link credit report data to the Turnaway Study, the first study to collect high-quality, longitudinal data on women receiving or being denied a wanted abortion in the United States. We compare financial outcomes over a ten-year period for women who had pregnancies just above and below a gestational age limit allowing for a wanted abortion. Outcome trajectories are similar for the two groups of women prior to the abortion encounter. Following the encounter, women who were denied an abortion experience a large increase in financial distress that is sustained for several years. There is also some evidence of a short-term reduction in credit access, but no change in measures of borrowing. Our results highlight important financial and economic consequences of restrictions on abortion access.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.351
GPT teacher head0.550
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 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

Citations68
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNational Bureau of Economic ResearchSame topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207