Characterizing physician concerns with publicly supporting abortion at Wisconsin's largest medical school
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine factors associated with physicians' level of concern and perceived consequences of publicly supporting abortion at Wisconsin's largest and only publicly funded medical school. METHODS: We surveyed physicians at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health about their knowledge, attitudes, and referral practices regarding abortion care. Among those who expressed support for abortion (N = 701), we analyzed perceived concerns about making their support public. RESULTS: Nearly a quarter (22%) of respondents felt very or extremely concerned that taking a strong public stance on abortion would alienate patients and 17% felt very or extremely concerned that doing so would alienate coworkers. More than a quarter (27%) felt very or extremely concerned that publicly supporting abortion would lead to harassment or harm. Those with greater concerns about expressing public support for abortion were comparatively less willing to refer for or participate in abortion care themselves. CONCLUSIONS: Many physicians supportive of abortion reported concerns over publicizing their support for this common health care service. These concerns may render physicians less likely to refer patients for needed abortion care or weigh in on abortion policy.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it