Exploring the Experiences of Ontario Postsecondary Students With the Emergency Contraception Pill
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This research aimed to explore how female postsecondary students in Ontario describe their experiences of obtaining the emergency contraceptive pill (ECP), and what methods and strategies they used to obtain ECP. METHODS: Qualitative semi-structured interviews with 11 female postsecondary students in Ontario who have taken ECP occurred in January 2024. Participants were 18-23 years old and included undergraduate, graduate, and medical students. Anonymized transcripts were analyzed using interpretative phenomenology. RESULTS: The decision of how to obtain emergency contraception pills was impacted by a lack of accurate information. Participants used various methods to access emergency contraception pills, including drawing attention away from themselves, obtaining emergency contraception pills in a group, or having intimate partners purchase emergency contraception pills. Stigma and perception of judgement influenced participants' experiences obtaining emergency contraception pills. CONCLUSIONS: The experience of obtaining emergency contraception pills was negative but necessary to avoid pregnancy for participants. Women in this qualitative study used alternative strategies to obtain emergency contraception pills due to the experience of a lack of body autonomy, misinformation, and access.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".