MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386697685 · doi:10.1002/pam.22524

Forecasts for a post‐Roe America: The effects of increased travel distance on abortions and births

2023· article· en· W4386697685 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Caitlin Knowles Myers

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Policy Analysis and Management · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbortionQuarter (Canadian coin)DemographyFamily planningInduced AbortionsDemographic economicsMedicineGeographyPregnancyPopulationEconomicsResearch methodologySociologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract I compile novel data measuring county‐level travel distances to abortion facilities and resident abortion rates from 2009 through 2020. Using these data, I implement a difference‐in‐difference research design measuring the effects of driving distance to the nearest abortion facility on abortions and births. The results indicate large but diminishing effects: an increase from 0 to 100 miles is estimated to reduce abortion rates by 19.4% and increase birth rates by 2.2%, while the next 100 miles reduces abortions by an additional 12.8% and increases births by an additional 1.6%. Based on this evidence, I forecast the effects of post‐Roe abortion bans on abortion rates by county, state, and region. In a scenario in which total abortion bans take effect in 24 states, about one‐quarter of residents seeking abortions are predicted to become trapped by distance and about three‐quarters of those who are trapped are predicted to give birth as a result.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.193

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations43
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Policy Analysis and ManagementSame topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207