MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008763674 · doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.10.002

The legal effects of fetal monitoring guidelines

2009· article· en· W2008763674 on OpenAlexaff
Bernard M. Dickens, Rebecca J. Cook

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpretation (philosophy)AmbivalenceCompliance (psychology)MedicineSet (abstract data type)LawPolitical sciencePsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The new American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' (ACOG) monitoring guidelines introduce a new category of interpretation of fetal heart rate tracings between reassuring and nonreassuring, namely intermediate. The purpose is to reduce unnecessary cesarean deliveries. The legal role of medical guidelines is ambivalent. Providers are expected to be familiar with such guidelines, but also to exercise clinical judgment in their patients' interests. Practice departing from guidelines requires justification, but simple compliance without regard to patients' circumstances may constitute negligence. Some courts defer to medical professional guidelines, but others hold that professional standards are set as a matter of law, not by the profession itself. Unlike conclusions in medical science, which are open to continuing review, courts determine facts in a case only once, at trial. Litigation to compel patients' compliance with medical advice based on guidelines may fail, as may prosecutions, more common in the US, of patients who defy such advice.

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)0.052
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.279
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.276

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0520.279
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.013
Scholarly communication0.0090.008
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0220.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.001

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.406 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Gynecology & ObstetricsSame topicMedical Malpractice and Liability IssuesFrench-language works237,207