Hormonally Active Contraceptives, Part II: Sociological, Environmental, and Economic Impact
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To investigate the sociological, environmental, and economic impact of hormonally active contraceptives, a series of comprehensive literature surveys were employed. Sociological effects are discussed including abortion, exploitation of women, a weakening of marriage, and an increase in divorce with deleterious effects on children such as child poverty, poorer health, lower educational achievement, suicide risks, drug and alcohol abuse, criminality, and incarceration, among others. The environmental impact is discussed briefly and includes the feminization and trans-gendering of male fish downstream from the effluent of city wastewater treatment plants with declining fish populations. The potential economic impact of most of these side effects is estimated based on epidemiologic data and published estimates of costs of caring for the diseases which are linked to the use of hormonally active contraceptives. Hormonally active contraceptives appear to have a deleterious impact on multiple aspects of women's health as well as negative economic and environmental impacts. These risks can be avoided through the use of nonhormonal methods and need to be more clearly conveyed to the public. SUMMARY: Hormonal contraceptives have wide-ranging effects. The potential economic impact of the medical side effects is estimated. Sociological effects are discussed including abortion, exploitation of women, a weakening of marriage and an increase in divorce with negative effects on children such as child poverty, poorer health, lower educational achievement, suicide risks, drug and alcohol abuse, criminality and incarceration among others. The environmental impact includes hormonal effects on fish with declining fish populations. Women seeking birth control have a right to know about how to avoid these risks by using effective hormone-free methods like Fertility Awareness Methods.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".