MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412111220 · doi:10.12927/hcpol.2025.27545

Conceiving Policy Design: Perspectives From Women Pursuing IVF in British Columbia

2025· article· en· W4412111220 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jenna Quelch

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare policy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)InfertilityPublic fundingIn vitro fertilisationPolitical scienceEconomic growthBusinessFamily medicineMedicineEnvironmental healthPublic administrationPregnancyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

People experiencing infertility often face challenges accessing treatment, such as in vitro fertilization (IVF), especially in contexts where treatments are not funded by government or public health insurance plans. Using an original survey, this paper examines barriers to accessing IVF in British Columbia (BC), a province that recently announced that it would start funding IVF, beginning in fiscal year 2025/26. The survey findings highlight the financial, geographic and personal barriers that limit access to treatment. BC's new publicly funded IVF program should address patient challenges related to upfront costs, regional variation in the unaffordability of treatment and existing research related to embryo transfer limits in other provinces.

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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.593
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.331 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare policySame topicReproductive Health and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207