Exploring Teen Pregnancy as a Public Health Problem: A Critical Scoping Review of Public Health Research on Teen Pregnancy in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inequities related to teen pregnancy are a complex social and health problem across the globe. Evaluation of research assumptions can help to move research forward when considering complex public health issues. Drawing on previous critical reviews, this scoping review sought to map not just what teen pregnancy research is available, but how current public health research was orienting to teen pregnancy in Canada. This review included studies focused on general or intended teen pregnancy within a public health Canadian context. Both grey and peer-reviewed literature were searched, with only studies in English and French included. In total 32 studies were analyzed. Taking a multifaceted approach to assessing research orientation this scoping review applied an adapted health equity framework to consider alignment between awareness and action and utilized discourse analysis to explore constructions of pregnancy intention. Results showed although a portion of research fell within the acknowledge and illuminate categories, most of the research utilized public health language rooted in biomedical and individualistic discourses and focused on influencing individual action, rather than greater societal change. Adding to the growing body of teen pregnancy research in Canada, this scoping review revealed potential epistemological barriers related to limited research approaches, applied public health action, and engagement with topic overall, leading to a call for more diverse, critically reflective, and disruptive approaches to teen pregnancy research in Canada to address teen pregnancy-related inequities at the root.
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 | 0.044 | 0.115 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.037 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".