The Crime of the „Forced Abortion“ before the Regional Court in Olomouc in the SecondHalf of the Eighties and in the First Half of the Nineties of the Nineteenth Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article I go in for the second half of the eighties and the first half of the nineties of the nineteenth century. I focus on the characterics of women who committed (or attempted to commit) the crime of the “Forced Abortion”, but also on the characteristic of men who often urged their partners to get the “Forced Abortion” carried out and also of persons who performed the illegal abortions, whether they were physicians, midwifes or persons without medical education. The specific criminal cases of the Regional Court in Olomouc identify the causes of crime, methods of its implementation (mechanical or chemical means used), the way of decision making of the court on the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, guilt and punishment and also the attitude of the Prosecutor's Office in Olomouc and advocates towards the accused and the crime. In the end I present pertinent conclusions and I try to compare two periods - the second half of the eighties and the first half of the nineties of the nineteenth century and the first quarter of the twentieth century.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".