MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W156211322 · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7422.1038

Counselling

2003· review· en· W156211322 on OpenAlexaff
A. Bagshawe

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChildlessnessPsychologySocial psychologyAnxietyCoping (psychology)Affect (linguistics)InfertilityDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyMedicinePsychiatryFertilityPregnancyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Subfertility usually affects a person's capacity to function normally in close personal relationships, socially, and at work. Many couples find that facing the problem of subfertility, and coping with the investigations and treatments can cause anxiety, stress, and depression. Demands and pressures may be placed on subfertile couples by different cultural, religious, and familial attitudes towards parenthood and childlessness. These factors can also affect the way each individual feels about and responds to the problem.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.218
Threshold uncertainty score0.728

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2180.063

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 head0.194
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.281 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations21
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicReproductive Health and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207