MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415975704 · doi:10.1177/03631990251384503

From Pennyroyal to Mifepristone: What Demographers Missed about Birth Control?

2025· article· en· W4415975704 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John M. Riddle

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family History · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal Changes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBirth controlVariety (cybernetics)Control (management)Developed countryFertilityAlternative medicineBirth rate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent decades some historians have found that premodern Western people employed a variety of birth controls while they exercised a degree of control over their reproduction. Reacting to this claim, prominent demographers contend there was no discernable birth control until about the 1890s. For over three millennia, herbal menstrual regulators were likely the most widely used birth control means. Historians examined medical, legal, anecdotal, and other sources in regions in Spain, modern Greece, Ireland, Australia, the United States, Canada, Peru, and the Caribbean islands primarily from the late eighteenth through early twentieth centuries. Demographers' claims are misguided. Menstrual regulators tors worked for the purposes intended. They gave women choices and were mostly silently executed. Some herbal regulators constrained exactly the same compound as our modern birth-control drug.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.036
Scholarly communication0.0050.018
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0060.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Family HistorySame topicHistorical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal ChangesFrench-language works237,207