MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1836051793 · doi:10.3917/rf.012.0009

Naît-on encore ? Réflexions sur la production médicale de l’accouchement

2015· article· fr· W1836051793 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRecherches familiales · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, Medicine and Society
Canadian institutionsCanadian Research Institute for the Advancement of WomenUniversité du Québec à MontréalMusée de la Civilisation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Depuis l’Antiquité, on se livre à des calculs pour estimer la durée de la grossesse. Au fil du temps, la notion de terme gestationnel a changé de sens, passant de l’idée d’intervalle pendant lequel la naissance survient, spontanément (lorsque le « fruit est mûr »), à un concept normatif postulant une « durée optimale de grossesse » de plus en plus serrée et assorti d’une « date prévue d’accouchement ». Le passage d’une appréhension naturaliste à une construction logicomathématique du terme gestationnel, conjugué à la découverte de moyens de « produire la naissance » à la demande, a entraîné la pratique sans cesse en augmentation – dans le monde « médicalement occidentalisé » – du déclenchement artificiel de l’accouchement et de la césarienne programmée. L’article propose un examen critique de la rationalité sur laquelle s’appuie cette programmation et en présente les implications insuffisamment appréciées.

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.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.255
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.388
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.087 · 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