MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3209479112 · doi:10.1071/sh21116

Reproductive coercion and abuse in Australia: what do we need to know?

2021· article· en· W3209479112 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSexual Health · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnintended pregnancyReproductive healthSexual coercionCoercion (linguistics)Reproductive medicineMedicineAbortionDomestic violenceSexual abusePsychiatryCriminologyPsychologyPoison controlPregnancyMedical emergencySuicide preventionEnvironmental healthPopulationFamily planning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reproductive coercion and abuse refers to patterns of controlling and manipulative behaviours used to interfere with a person's reproductive health and decision-making. Unintended pregnancy, forced abortion or continuation of a pregnancy, and sexually transmissible infections all may result from reproductive coercion, which is closely associated with intimate partner and sexual violence. Clinicians providing sexual and reproductive healthcare are in a key position to identify and support those affected. Yet, reproductive coercion and abuse is not currently screened for in most settings and addressing disclosures poses many challenges. This article discusses what reproductive coercion and abuse is, who it affects, how it impacts, and potential strategies to improve identification and response.

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.247
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.343 · 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