Bibliographic record
Abstract
The birth control pill provided women with some control over their reproduction and offered adults more liberty in sexual interaction. This documentary explores the background behind the release of the pill without adequate safety testing and the resulting serious side effects, including death, experienced by some users of the early high-dose pill. Using archival footage and interviews, this documentary "chronicles little known chapters in the history of the oral contraceptive that changed the world, examines how far the pharmaceutical industry was willing to risk women's health to launch its magic bullet." (quote from Women Make Movies site) Gloria Steinem and Barbara Seaman, journalist and author of The Doctor's Case Against the Pill (1969), are interviewed, as are women from Puerto Rico, who, unknowingly, were test subjects for the early pill. Additional footage shows the efforts of women's health activists who questioned the high-dose pill's safety and scientists who helped to develop the pill. "When the U.S. government convened hearings to review the drug's safety, the new women's health movement claimed its first major victory - patient package inserts warning about the drug's side effects." (quote from the National Film Board of Canada site). The program was made in Canada.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.063 |
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".