Le profil psychosocial de couples consultant à une clinique de fertilité
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study is to draw the psychosocial profile of couples who consult fertility clinics. More specifically, it consists of a) comparing the psychosocial status of subjects who seek fertility consultation with that of normal subjects or individuals at grips with psychological problems; b) determining whether there are profile differences between men and women who seek fertility consultation; and c) assessing whether it is possible to predict the nature of the psychosocial profile of the subjects from various sociodemographic and medical characteristics. The sampling includes 30 couples who are consulting a specialist in a fertility clinic belonging to a Montréal-area hospital. Analysis of results shows that the psychosocial profile of subjects consulting a fertility clinic is midway between that or normal subjects and that of individuals suffering of psychological problems. The psychological status of men and women consulting a fertility clinic is different according to three variables: depression, self-esteem and stress. Finally, multiple regression analysis has allowed the author to identify several medical characteristics linked to the extent of the psychosocial difficulties experienced by the infertile subjects.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".