MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117298633 · doi:10.1080/23293691.2025.2601862

Women’s Experiences Seeking Health Care in the Context of Reproductive Coercion and Abuse

2025· article· en· W7117298633 on OpenAlexaff
Molly Wellington, Kelsey Hegarty, Laura Tarzia

Bibliographic record

VenueWomen s Reproductive Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Coercion (linguistics)Health careSexual abusePublic healthIntervention (counseling)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reproductive coercion and abuse (RCA) is a form of violence against women where physical, psychological, sexual, or coercive behaviors are used to control women’s reproductive choices. This study aimed to understand women’s experiences and expectations with health professionals after experiencing RCA. Using qualitative methodology, 20 women who had experiences of RCA were interviewed. Three themes were developed that captured women’s experiences: Everyone was looking at me with “those” eyes; Recognize that something is not right; and Empower me to make my own choices. This study highlights how women’s perceptions of judgment from health professionals deeply impacts their experience of RCA.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.337 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWomen s Reproductive HealthSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207