Time for change: quantitative & qualitative analyses of women’s desires to improve access\nto abortion services on Prince Edward Island
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prince Edward Island is the only province in Canada lacking local, surgical abortions and Island\ncitizens must travel across provincial borders in order to obtain an abortion. Many barriers exist\nthat impede women’s access to abortion services making it difficult for many women to access\nthis constitutionally protected, medically necessary service. This three-phase study examines the\nICD-9 codes of recorded pregnancies with abortive outcomes on PEI within the first phase, and\nthe desired changes of Prince Edward Island women regarding access to abortion in the second\nand third phases. The Pregnancy with Abortive Outcome ICD-9 codes between 1996-2013\nobtained from Health PEI indicate that physicians bill for illegal and failed attempted abortions\non PEI. Using Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis, 22 individual interviews were analysed\nto identify the changes women wanted who had previously accessed abortion services. The main\nthemes that emerged from the individual interviews included access to abortion services,\ncounselling, judgment/stigmatization, education, support, and privacy. A focus group consisting\nof 6 participants was also conducted to gain further insight to necessary changes surrounding\nabortion access, and methodological hermeneutics were used to analyse the focus group\ndiscussion. The main themes that emerged from the focus group included a local, publicly funded\nhealth clinic, information, and support. The findings of the study emphasize the lack of abortion\naccess and the necessity of various changes to occur in order to attain reproductive justice on\nPrince Edward Island. Recommended changes that will assist in improving abortion access and\nreproductive justice are central to ameliorating the reproductive health of Island women.
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 | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".