COMMENTARY Alcohol and Pregnancy: Do Abstinence Policies Have Unintended Consequences?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract — Most policies and guidelines recommend that women abstain from alcohol during pregnancy. This can be difficult to achieve in developed nations where the majority of women consume alcohol and almost half of pregnancies are unplanned, leading to many pregnancies being exposed to alcohol prior to pregnancy awareness. Concerns have been raised that abstinence policies may lead women in this situation to terminate their pregnancy out of fear that they have harmed their baby; however, the evidence is limited. A recent study found that while few women reported alcohol as the reason for seeking an abortion, in almost all cases where alcohol was the reason, the women were either binge drinking or reported alcohol-related problems and the pregnancy was unplanned. The main theme of most alcohol and pregnancy policies is that abstinence during pregnancy is the safest choice (O’Leary et al., 2007; National Health and Medical Research Council, 2009). The strength of the policy advice ranges from ‘no safe amount or time to drink alcohol during preg-nancy ’ as advised by the US Surgeon General, to the advice in Canadian, UK and Australian policies that ‘the risk from low levels of alcohol is likely to be low’. The variations in
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".