MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W110162442 · doi:10.1093/pch/13.4.341

Re: Faith held by Jehovah's Witnesses does not always forbid blood transfusions

2008· article· en· W110162442 on OpenAlexaff
Christine Harrison

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBlood donation and transfusion practices
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBlood transfusionFaithIntensive care medicinePhilosophySurgeryTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The author responds, My understanding is that although Jehovah's Witnesses (JWs) seek medical care and accept most medical treatments, their religious beliefs preclude transfusion of whole blood and its major components. JWs regard donor-derived blood transfusion (whole blood, red cells, white cells, platelets and plasma) as contrary to scriptural commands. They request medical management using alternatives to blood transfusion, eg, blood conservation and ‘bloodless’ surgery (ie, surgery performed without the use of transfused blood). The sources of my understanding include materials from the Jehovah's Witnesses – Office of Public Information Web site: ... JWs do not necessarily reject the use of some blood fractions that may have been processed or derived from plasma or blood cells (eg, albumin, clotting factors, immunoglobulins, fibrin glue, cryoprecipitate, oxygen-carrying red-cell substitutes and interferons). Because JW patients make their own individual personal decisions on these matters, it is essential to discuss the acceptability of blood and specific blood products with each individual patient or family.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.225

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0090.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0670.038

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicBlood donation and transfusion practicesFrench-language works237,207