MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411664803 · doi:10.3389/fgwh.2025.1594066

The impact of implementing the women's reproductive rights agenda on climate change

2025· article· en· W4411664803 on OpenAlexaff
Marleen Temmerman, Céline Delacroix, Malachi Ochieng Arunda, Sara Khalid, Claudia Hanson, Samuel Ojong

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Global Women s Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate Change and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulationSexual and reproductive health and rightsReproductive healthEquity (law)SustainabilityPsychological resilienceBusinessEconomic growthPolitical scienceReproductive rightsEconomicsMedicineEcologyEnvironmental healthBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) established sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) as foundational to sustainable development. Thirty years later, advancing women's reproductive rights (WRR), encompassing agency, decision-making autonomy, and universal access to family planning-remains critical not only for health and gender equity but also for mitigating environmental degradation. By reducing unintended pregnancies and empowering women to align childbearing with personal and ecological capacity, WRR alleviates ecological stressors such as deforestation while enhancing health resilience in climate-vulnerable communities. Yet, despite well-documented linkages between population dynamics and environmental change, contemporary climate policies and funding mechanisms persistently exclude WRR. This oversight undermines the potential of reproductive justice to enhance climate resilience. Additionally, claims that integrating WRR into climate agendas covertly promotes population control or represses women in low- and middle-income countries are fundamentally misleading. Crucially, research is needed to quantify the specific environmental impacts of WRR, underscoring the urgent need for robust global models to predict and validate these co-benefits. Strengthening this evidence base is imperative to inform policies that integrate WRR indicators into climate financing frameworks, ensuring gender-responsive programming. Bridging this gap requires interdisciplinary collaboration to develop metrics that capture WRR's role in reducing resource consumption and enhancing adaptive capacity. Embedding WRR within climate agendas would harmonize reproductive justice with environmental action, unlocking synergies between gender equity, health resilience, and sustainability. Fulfilling the ICPD's vision demands centering WRR in global climate strategies, thereby advancing a just and livable future for all.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0090.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Global Women s HealthSame topicClimate Change and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207