Amnesty International’s updated policy on abortion: A resource for medical providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Treating abortion as a matter of reproductive autonomy is essential to promoting health, complying with medical ethics, and advancing human rights. When pregnant people can make autonomous decisions about their pregnancies, their health and human rights outcomes improve. Additionally, medical providers that support autonomous sexual and reproductive health decision-making can provide care in line with the highest ethical standards and promote pregnant individuals' human rights. This article highlights Amnesty International's updated institutional abortion policy which uses a reproductive autonomy frame to promote the full realization of human rights for all pregnant people. The policy relies on decades of evidence, the organization's learning from abortion research and advocacy around the world, and evolving human rights law and standards. While not specifically developed for a medical audience, Amnesty International's updated policy can be a useful resource for providers who seek to promote reproductive autonomy and achieve better health outcomes for their patients.
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 | 0.033 | 0.123 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.039 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.022 |
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".