Evaluating Information on Medication Abortion: Do Attitudes and State Policies Matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Food and Drug Administration proposed “patient medication information” inserts for all medications, including the abortion drug Mifepristone. It is unclear how abortion attitudes or state policies affect how people evaluate such communications. Participants ( n = 311) were randomized to view variants of the Mifepristone insert. Linear regression was used to assess abortion attitudes’ and policies’ relationships with comprehension and perceived evidence strength, safety, and effectiveness. Interaction terms were constructed to assess moderation of those relationships. Abortion policies were unrelated to comprehension, perceived evidence strength, or perceived effectiveness, but abortion bans at or before 6 weeks were associated with lower perceived safety. Attitudes were not associated with comprehension, but participants with positive attitudes rated the evidence as stronger and the drug as safer. Abortion attitudes moderated the effect of randomized group on perceived safety. The informational inserts communicate well across abortion policy environments (except perceived safety where abortion is banned at or before 6 weeks), yet negative abortion attitudes affected perceptions of evidence strength and drug safety.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".