Human rights and reproductive healthcare in rural, remote, and northern Manitoba
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to analyze if there are human rights violations regarding reproductive healthcare in rural, remote, and northern Manitoba, focusing on STBBIs, contraception, maternity care, and abortion. No similar research applies international human rights treaties to reproductive healthcare in rural Manitoba. There is minimal research on reproductive healthcare in the region. Chapter one focuses on Canada’s human rights obligations based on international human rights treaties. Chapter two maps out what reproductive healthcare is available in the region. Chapter three analyses how reproductive healthcare in Manitoba meets and does not meet Canada’s international human rights obligations. Chapter four makes recommendations. The respect, protect, fulfil framework, is used to analyze if there are human rights violations occurring in Manitoba in relation to reproductive healthcare. The research includes a scoping review. An analysis if the reproductive care provided in rural, remote, and northern Manitoba amounts to a human rights violation is complex. Rural, remote, and northern Manitoba is vast geographically. The research found limited or no violations in obligations related to STBBIs and contraceptives. Concerningly, there were many violations in relation to obligations surrounding care for pregnancy, including abortion and maternity care, specifically around prenatal care and the birth evacuation policy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".