MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310476928 · doi:10.1097/nmd.0000000000001596

The Mental and Physical Health Impacts of Overturning Roe v Wade

2022· article· en· W4310476928 on OpenAlexaff
Gail Erlick Robinson, Kara M. Brown, Sophie Grigoriadis, Carol C. Nadelson, Natalie Feldman, Nirmajit Dhami, Nikole Benders-Hadi, Leena Mittal, Marla Wald

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreMuscular Dystrophy CanadaUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbortionMiscarriageMedicineMental healthPregnancyInfertilityAbortPsychiatryPhysical healthUnwanted PregnancyEnvironmental healthFamily planningPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: The overturning of Roe v Wade has resulted in the loss of reproductive rights for millions of women in the United States. It has also put these women at risk of severe mental and physical health consequences. When legal abortions are restricted, there is a rise in illegal abortion with the risk of hemorrhage, infection, infertility, and death. There are many more risks of carrying a pregnancy to term than health or psychological risks of a legal abortion. Women who have a miscarriage risk having to prove they did not abort. In cases of medical emergencies, doctors may be restricted from performing life-saving abortions for fear of penalties. Women or children who have been victims of rape or incest will have to either have an illegal abortion or carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. In states that allow an abortion in cases of severe risk to a mother's health, panels of internists and psychiatrist may, again, be charged with deciding whether her risks are valid. Women's physical and mental health will suffer.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.868
Threshold uncertainty score0.332

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Nervous and Mental DiseaseSame topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207