Information and decision‐making process for selective termination of dichorionic pregnancies: some French obstetricians' points of view
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In France, neither Bioethics Law nor law related to abortion make reference to selective terminations (ST). Because they apply in the context of multiple pregnancies, ST raises problems which differ from those we usually see in prenatal medicine.We wanted to know: 1) which approaches were used by obstetricians to inform couples about processes and risks of ST, 2) their role in the decision-making process of couples, and 3) their representations about the level of autonomy that couples are able to assume. METHODS: Qualitative research, eight semi-structured interviews performed with eight obstetricians from seven public hospitals in Parisian region. RESULTS: Similarities: *Necessity to devote a lot of time to information. *Importance to give the couples the maximum of time for reflection. *Belief that the final decision belongs to couples. Discordances: *Heterogeneity of revealed information. *Discrepancy in the will to assure a complete and non directive information transfer. *Divergence in representations of what is an ethical support. *Differences in the limits of the autonomy of couples. CONCLUSIONS: All physicians believe that they respect the autonomy of couples, arguing that final decision belongs to them. Paradoxically, some results are indicative of a sizeable level of directiveness from the physicians.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".