Supplementary file.docx -<b>‘Partner involvement in contraception decision making globally: qualitative evidence synthesis’</b>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This file contains data of qualitative evidence synthesis for the topic - <b>Partner involvement in contraception decision making globally: a qualitative evidence synthesis</b>We examined worldwide evidence of factors that influence contraception choice and use. The databases searched were PubMed, Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Epistemonikos, Database of Promoting Health Effectiveness Reviews (DoPHER), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Campbell Library, NIHR Health Technology Assessment, Health Evidence Canada for systematic reviews published since 2000. The initial search conducted until June 2019 retrieved 24 systematic reviews, and 14 systematic reviews were retrieved after the search update in December 2021.The references of all the primary qualitative studies included in 38 systematic reviews were identified and imported into EPPI-Reviewer Web<sup> </sup>for screening.Around 24 SRs were harvested, and 1594 primary studies were identified from these systematic reviews. The title and abstracts of these studies were screened for eligibility, 1398 studies were excluded after ti/ab screening and 196 full texts were eligible for full text screening. Out of these 196 full texts, around 163 studies were excluded at full text screening stage and 33 studies were included for data extraction and analysis. During the search update, 14 SRs were harvested and 63 full texts were identified and screened for eligibility, 57 full texts were excluded and 6 included for data extraction and analysis. Therefore, after the original search and updated search, a total of 39 studies were included for data analysis and contributed to information in this review
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.012 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".