Couple-Focused Services in Publicly Funded Family Planning Clinics: Identifying the Need, 2009 HIGHLIGHTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
n Three complementary surveys were conducted in 2009 to assess interest in and provision of couple-focused family planning services in Title X clinics. Data were collected from a nationally representative sample of adult female clients of Title X–funded clinics; a sample of their male partners; and clinic administrators. n Nearly two-thirds of the women receiving family planning services from Title X–funded clinics reported interest in attending couple-focused counseling or classes with their partner. n Women were most interested in “planning when to have a baby, ” but clinics were more apt to cover “choosing and using birth control ” and “talking with a partner about birth control.” n Among women in relationships, nine in 10 said their partner knew about their clinic visit; seven in 10 said their partner would accompany them if asked and another quarter said their partner would do so “if he had time.” n Two-thirds of women in relationships said they would like their partner to see a clinician at their clinic by himself. About half said they would like their partner to come to the clinic to talk to their clinician with them, but only one in four reported that their current partner had ever done so.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".