MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4301088635

Teenage pregnancy.

2000· article· en· W4301088635 on OpenAlexaffabout
Heather Dryburgh

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbortionPregnancyMedicineLive birthTeenage pregnancyDemographyBirth rateObstetricsPopulationFertilityEnvironmental health
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: This article examines trends in teenage pregnancy in Canada, focussing on induced abortions, live births and fetal loss among women aged 15 to 19 in 1997. DATA SOURCES: The data come from the Hospital Morbidity Data Base and the Canadian Vital Statistics Data Base at Statistics Canada, and the annual Therapeutic Abortion Survey, conducted by the Canadian Institute for Health Information. Data on abortions performed on Canadian residents in the United States are from an annual survey of selected states. International data are from the Alan Guttmacher Institute. ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES: Pregnancy rates, abortion rates, live birth rates and fetal loss rates are calculated using population counts of women in the age groups 15 to 17, 18 to 19, and 15 to 19. The percentages of pregnancies that ended in the three outcomes are also calculated for these years. MAIN RESULTS: The teenage pregnancy rate declined from 1994 to 1997, reflecting lower teenage birth and fetal loss rates. Through this period the abortion rate remained stable, with the result that slightly more than half of all teenage pregnancies ended in abortion by 1997. Younger teens are more likely to have an abortion than to give birth. The majority of pregnancies among older teens end in a live birth, although the number of live births is decreasing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.232

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0690.010

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations8
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthFrench-language works237,207