MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412078777 · doi:10.12927/hcpol.2025.27600

Commentary: Adolescents, Marginalization(s) and Abortion Care in Canada

2025· editorial· en· W4412078777 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Tobin LeBlanc Haley, Ghazal Motamedi

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare policy · 2025
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFeminist Theory and Gender Studies
Canadian institutionsSaint John Regional HospitalUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbortionPolitical scienceGender studiesPsychologySociologyPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abortion access in Canada has improved in the past 37 years. However, as healthcare delivery is primarily a provincial/territorial responsibility, there are divergences in the administration and operation of abortion care, including coverage in rural areas, access to telemedicine for medication abortion and the laws and policies governing medical consent for minors. In addition, the access and experience of care are often conditioned by raced, classed and gendered inequalities. When considering abortion care in Canada, it is vital to consider the complexities of federalism, the realities of rural and semi-rural life and intersecting forms of marginalization impacting service users, especially adolescents.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.239
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.330 · 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
GenreEditorial

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
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare policySame topicFeminist Theory and Gender StudiesFrench-language works237,207