The Intersection of Abortion and Criminalization: Abortion Access for People in Prisons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most incarcerated women are of reproductive age, and more than a third of women will have an abortion during their reproductive years. Although women are the fastest growing population in Canadian prisons, no one has studied the effect of their incarceration on access to abortion services. Studies outside of Canada indicate rates of abortion are higher among people experiencing incarceration than in the general population, and that abortion access is often problematic. Although international standards for abortion care among incarcerated populations exist, there conversely appear to be no Canadian guidelines or procedures to facilitate unintended pregnancy prevention or management. Barriers to abortion care inequitably restrict people with unintended pregnancy from attaining education and employment opportunities, cause entrenchment in violent relationships, and prevent people from choosing to parent when they are ready and able. Understanding and facilitating equitable access to abortion care for incarcerated people is critical to address structural, gender-, and race-based reproductive health inequities, and to promote reproductive justice. There is an urgent need for research in this area to direct best practices in clinical care and support policies capable to ensure equal access to abortion care for incarcerated people.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".