Contraception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
HEALTH ISSUE: Contraception choices affect the long-term sexual health and fertility of women and men. Data from the 1998 Canadian Contraception Study and the 2000/2001 Canadian Community Health Survey were assessed for measures of contraceptive use and familiarity with various methods among Canadian women. KEY FINDINGS: The oral contraceptive (OC) pill is the dominant method of contraception for Canadian women. Canadian women demonstrate high awareness of the benefits of condom use, but 75% are unaware of the female condom. Among youth, condom use drops as OC use increases. Contraception use in sexually active females aged 15-17 is fairly high, but use is inconsistent. Sexually active adolescent females report high awareness of emergency contraception but poor knowledge of the time frame within which it is most effective. Women aged 35-44 are more familiar with and likely to choose sterilization than younger women. There has also been a shift away from tubal ligation in favour of vasectomies. DATA GAPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: National data to guide policy and program development are limited. More data are needed on contraception use among males, and factors affecting accessibility, adherence and negotiation of choice. The importance of dual protection, and correct and consistent use of the chosen contraceptive method must be communicated to younger Canadians, as well as health care providers and educators. All women of reproductive age should be made aware of emergency contraception methods and increased efforts on sexual health promotion and education are required. Further research is essential to develop expanded contraceptive choices.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.483 | 0.254 |
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".