MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3128574139 · doi:10.26443/mjm.v8i2.551

Abortion in Medical School Curricula

2020· article· en· W3128574139 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Atsuko Koyama, Robin Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueMcGill Journal of Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen's UniversityUniversity of Arizona
KeywordsAbortionMedicineAuntCurriculumFamily medicineMarital statusSisterReproductive healthMedical educationNursingPopulationPregnancyPsychologyLawEnvironmental healthPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studies show that in a group of five women- your mother, sister, aunt, daughter, girlfriend- two of them will have an abortion by age forty-four (1). Although this statistic varies by several factors including race and marital status, abortion is one of the most commonly performed surgical procedures in the United States and Canada (1, 2). Abortion is a safe, legal and common procedure, yet it is not routinely taught in medical schools (3, 4). In fact, there are no requirements that abortion be included in medical school curricula (5). Because it is so common, it is important for medical students to learn about abortion- the technical aspects of the different types of procedures, as well as the social, global and public health issues involved in abortion provision. Regardless of an individual physician's personal beliefs about abortion, every physician has a responsibility to help patients achieve optimal mental and physical health, to inform patients of their reproductive health options, and to serve as patient advocates. Only through comprehensive education and training will future physicians be able to meet the reproductive health needs of 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.599
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.316 · 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.

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

Citations15
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMcGill Journal of MedicineSame topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207