The <scp>WHO</scp> abortion care guideline: Law and policy—Past, present, and future
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the 2022 Abortion Care Guideline, the World Health Organization (WHO) undertook systematic evidence reviews of seven law and policy interventions to assess their health and social impacts. Distinct recommendations were formulated for each. The present article highlights how the Guideline reconceptualizes abortion regulation as a complex structural intervention that shapes clinical care and service delivery and distributes risks and resources within these systems and in the care relations that define them. It then presents the Guideline recommendations and summarizes their evidence base, drawing on recent legal and policy developments to emphasize their real-world significance. The article concludes by anticipating the future of abortion law and policy, focusing on service delivery innovations and diverse care models, drug regulation and the supply of abortion pills, and protective interventions crafted in the context of political crisis and immediate need that serve policy objectives and take regulatory forms different from the past.
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 | 0.029 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".