MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383302495 · doi:10.1016/j.whi.2023.05.008

Canadian Newspapers Support Mifepristone Medication Abortion to Improve Fulfillment of the AAAQ Right to Health Framework (2015–2019)

2023· article· en· W4383302495 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Tamil Kendall, Pallavi Sriram, Amrit Parmar, Wendy V. Norman

Bibliographic record

VenueWomen s Health Issues · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Institute of TechnologyUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchProvincial Health Services AuthorityMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsMifepristoneAbortionNewspaperViewpointsMisoprostolMedical abortionMedicinePolitical scienceFamily medicineLawPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In 2015, mifepristone in combination with misoprostol, the international gold standard for medication abortion, was approved for use in Canada. By 2019, all Canadian provinces had included the medication as a publicly insured health benefit. METHODS: Our content analysis of Canadian newspaper coverage describes arguments in favor of or against medication abortion and the evolving regulatory framework for mifepristone from 6 months before regulatory approval until the last significant regulatory barrier to use was removed (2015-2019). RESULTS: Our study found an exceptionally high level of support for the approval of, introduction of, and removal of regulatory barriers to mifepristone for medication abortion. Of 402 pieces, 67% were pro-medication abortion, 25% presented balanced or neutral coverage, and only 8% presented solely anti-medication abortion viewpoints. Of the 761 individuals quoted, more than 90% made positive or neutral statements about medication abortion. Most pieces discussed medication abortion as a health issue and described how liberalization of the regulatory framework would improve abortion availability (68%), accessibility (87%), acceptability (34%), and quality (28%). CONCLUSIONS: Rather than formal balance, which presents contrasting arguments as equally valid even when the scientific evidence for one vastly outweighs the other, our study identified evidentiary balance, in which coverage aligned with the weight of evidence and expert opinion. Our results differ from analyses in other high-income countries (United Kingdom, United States) where media outlets frame abortion in relation to morality or electoral politics rather than as a health issue. The Canadian print media presented overwhelmingly favorable arguments toward the expansion of mifepristone medication abortion and framed the introduction and universal coverage of medication abortion as advancing the "Availability, Accessibility, Acceptability, and Quality" (AAAQ) Right to Health Framework that establishes international human rights standards for health information, facilities, goods, and services.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.519
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWomen s Health IssuesSame topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207