MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310182091 · doi:10.33137/wij.v18i2.39682

“An Oasis in the Desert:” Dr. Garson Romalis and the Struggle to Maintain Access to Abortion in Canada

2022· article· en· W4310182091 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
R. R. Broter

Bibliographic record

VenueWomen in Judaism A Multidisciplinary e-Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMormonism, Religion, and History
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbortionTerrorismHarassmentPolitical scienceMedicineSociologyLawPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dr. Garson Romalis (1937-2014) was an obstetrician, gynaecologist and abortion provider in Vancouver, British Columbia. Like other abortion providers in North America, Romalis, his family and his clinic were subjected to years of harassment by pro-life activists. In 1994, Romalis was shot in his home by an anti-abortion terrorist and in 2000, he was stabbed by another terrorist outside of his clinic. Yet Romalis continued to provide this legal and essential medical procedure to British Columbian women, and advocated for the education of more abortion providers. This study will discuss the life and contributions of Gary Romalis and outline the motivations of the man to continue this dangerous work. It will compare his experiences with that of the more famous Canadian abortion provider, Dr. Henry Morgentaler, and speculate upon the significance of the Jewish ideal of tikkun olam (to heal the world) in these men’s lifework. Abortion terrorism will be situated within the constellation of pro-life activities, the goal of which is the curtailment of access to abortion in Canada.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.747

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0530.018
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.236 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWomen in Judaism A Multidisciplinary e-JournalSame topicMormonism, Religion, and HistoryFrench-language works237,207