MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378640171 · doi:10.1002/ijgo.14878

Human rights approaches to reducing infertility

2023· article· en· W4378640171 on OpenAlexaff
Payal K Shah, Jaime M. Gher

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInfertilityHarmMale infertilityHealth careStigma (botany)Political scienceMedicineLawPsychiatryPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In April 2023, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued new estimates affirming that one in six individuals experience infertility globally. Yet, many states are unclear on their responsibility to prevent infertility, ensure access to treatment, and to end the harm suffered by individuals who are considered infertile. Responding to this uncertainty, in June 2023, the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR) issued a new research paper explaining states' legal obligations regarding infertility. Importantly, OHCHR underscores that states must take steps to prevent infertility by addressing its root causes and ensure access to treatment. Further, states must address the negative consequences of infertility, including stigma and violence, as well as the discriminatory stereotypes that lead to certain groups facing disproportionate harm from infertility. This article provides an overview of the OHCHR report and explains what this means for healthcare providers, who have a critical role to play in providing care and advocating for legal and policy reform necessary to prevent, diagnose, and treat infertility.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.023
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0020.012
Research integrity0.0080.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.003

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 head0.162
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Gynecology & ObstetricsSame topicReproductive Health and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207