Cesarean section by choice: Constructing a reproductive rights framework for the debate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The question of cesarean section by choice (that is, cesarean delivery in the absence of medical indications) has been hotly debated by the obstetrical profession in recent years. The debate has focused around questions of risks and benefits, and has revolved around questions of obstetrical practice. In this paper, the question will be framed in a reproductive rights context. How does the phenomenon of CSBC (cesarean section by choice) impact women's empowerment? Which reproductive rights might be affected by this question, and what policies are related to its use? FIGO's 1998 statement "Ethical Aspects regarding Cesarean Delivery for Non-Medical Reasons" is revisited, and, in light of these considerations, its contents are endorsed once again.
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 | 0.040 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.089 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".