MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392978929 · doi:10.26443/mjgh.v9i1.1323

The Global Gag Rule

2020· article· en· W4392978929 on OpenAlexafffund
Sandy Shergill, Bowen Lan, Camille Zeitouni, Julia Biris, Salome Henry, Lily Yang, Rebecca Wan

Bibliographic record

VenueMcGill Journal of Global Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Human Rights and Reproductive Law
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsJurisdictionGlobal healthPublic administrationPolitical scienceAbortionForeign policyHealth policyAdministration (probate law)Economic growthBusinessHealth careLawEconomicsPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Mexico City Policy, also known as the Global Gag Rule, is a U.S policy that requires foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) receiving U.S. global health funding to certify that they will not perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning. In 2017, President Donald Trump expanded the policy’s reach to include all global health assistance funding from U.S. agencies and departments. It is estimated that 1,275 foreign NGOs and US$8.8 billion in global health funding are subject to Trump’s expanded policy. Globally, an additional 2.2 million abortions, including 2.1 million unsafe abortions, are estimated to occur from 2017 to 2020 under President Trump’s administration. The Global Gag Rule undermines local sovereignty and jurisdiction over reproductive health law in countries that require these funds to operate and provide comprehensive reproductive services. This case study will highlight the effects of this policy by evaluating its quantitative and qualitative impacts and discussing the future implications for countries impacted by the policy. Results of this report demonstrate the policy’s failures in both achieving its own goals as well as international aims to improve global health and women’s rights among others.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.921
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.346 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMcGill Journal of Global HealthSame topicInternational Human Rights and Reproductive LawFrench-language works237,207