MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392873481 · doi:10.21276/ierj24174860457706

HOW CULTURE AFFECTS ABORTION LAWS AND ITS IMPACTS

2024· article· en· W4392873481 on OpenAlexaff
Areej Parvez

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education and Research Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbortionSupreme courtLegislatureLawReproductive rightsPolitical scienceGay rightsStigma (botany)Right to lifeFace (sociological concept)Abortion lawHuman rightsCriminologySociologyPoliticsFamily planningPsychologyPopulationPregnancySocial scienceDemographyResearch methodology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Supreme Court's role in shaping reproductive rights for women in the United States has been significant since the landmark ruling in Roe v. Wade in 1973. However, the ongoing debate over access to reproductive healthcare and abortion rights persisted, leading to the recent overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022. This research explores the impact of legislative laws on abortion in the United States, focusing on the Dobbs v. Jackson case and its aftermath. This research discusses how trigger bans and gestational bans have resulted in a rapid decline in access to abortion services, particularly for marginalized communities. It also highlights the impact of these laws on young pregnant girls, who already face limited abortion options due to existing restrictions. This research further examines the role of culture in shaping views on abortion, including religious beliefs, stigma, and geographical location. It concludes by discussing the shift from pro-life to pro-choice views among Americans and the need for increased media coverage and advocacy campaigns to challenge stigma and humanize the abortion experience.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.692
Threshold uncertainty score0.483

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.431 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education and Research JournalSame topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207