International reproductive rights and maternal mortality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The landmark international conference on population and development, held in Cairo, in 1994, internationally clarified and defined reproductive rights. At this conference, 179 countries, including Canada, agreed that universal reproductive rights are necessary for individual advancement and the balanced development of a nation. The conference resulted in the development of a 20 year Programme of Action that centered on reducing mortality, providing universal education, and access to reproductive health care by 2015. However, it is estimated, by the World Health Organization (WHO), that each year, 500,000 women still die from pregnancy related causes. Living in a country where the maternal mortality rate is only at 0.8 of the total percentage of women’s deaths, I argue that the Canadian government is denying many women in third world nations of their reproductive rights by not providing adequate funding and services to overseas development initiatives. To support this argument, this paper will investigate the strong need for help with funding that women living in developing countries need and are not provided with by their own government(s). I will argue that Canadians, as well as other developed countries, should be responsible for assisting women who are born into countries that deprive them of their reproductive rights. Furthermore, this paper will discuss the benefits that stronger funding for family planning programs as well as reproductive health education could have on women living in unfortunate circumstances in third world nations. I argue that with adequate family planning and education, maternal mortality rates would decrease. Lastly, I will examine the benefits of providing funding and access to sufficient health care services and in particular, the benefits of emergency and maternity health care services.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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.
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".