MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220982529 · doi:10.5744/rhm.3005

Creating Choice and Building Consensus

2022· article· en· W4220982529 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRhetoric of Health & Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMale Reproductive Health Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRhetoricPublic relationsStigma (botany)PopularityCurriculumSocial policyPolitical scienceMedicinePublic administrationLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

According to a recent study by the Brookings Institution (Reeves & Krause, 2016), vasectomies are safer, more effective, and less expensive than most other voluntary sterilization methods. While the procedure has grown in popularity in recent years, particularly in the United Kingdom and Canada, it is much less common in the United States. This discrepancy can be attributed to both social (a perception that contraception is “women’s work”) and policy-­based factors (lack of coverage under the Affordable Care Act). This paper examines the role and extent to which invitational rhetoric could be a useful communicative lens for both partners and providers considering vasectomies, thus increasing access to and utilization of the safe, effective, and affordable procedure. In this policy brief, we suggest strategies for incorporating invitational rhetoric into health professions education curricula, patient counseling literature, and policy language in order to address some of the social stigma around the procedure.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.532
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.362 · 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