Bibliographic record
Abstract
In response to Health Canada’s recommendation on the effectiveness of the levonorgestrel emergency contraceptive pill and weight, it is the SOGC's position that: Women requesting emergency contraception should be advised that scientific evidence shows that for any weight category, insertion of a copper intrauterine device for emergency contraception is more effective than any emergency contraceptive pill. According to a 2011 study, levonorgestrel-only emergency contraception may be less effective in women with a body mass index of 25 to 29 and ineffective in women with a body mass index of 30 and over. This is the basis for the recent Health Canada recommendation to add new warnings to product packages advising that these pills are less effective in women weighing 165 to 176 pounds (75-80 kg) and are not effective in women over 176 pounds (80 kg). However, further research is needed to confirm these findings. Until further evidence is available, women with a body mass index of 30 and over who do not have access to or do not want a Copper intrauterine device for emergency contraception should not be discouraged from using levonorgestrel-only emergency contraception, since it may still provide some benefit. View Health Canada’s notice This SOGC position statement has been endorsed by the Canadian Pharmacists Association.
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.023 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.189 | 0.165 |
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".