The Influence of Experiential Knowledge on Prenatal Screening and Testing Decisions
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Minimal research focuses on the process of decision making in the context of prenatal screening and testing. This paper outlines an important contextual influence on these decisions. Specifically, we propose that experiential knowledge, particularly about pregnancy, screening, and disability, has a significant influence on prenatal screening and testing decisions. Drawing upon 38 semistructured interviews with women, this study explored how women made prenatal screening and testing decisions. Qualitative data analysis revealed two types of experiential knowledge, empathetic and embodied, which played a pivotal role in women's thinking about the value of prenatal tests and whether or not they accepted the offer of screening, testing, or both. We conclude that prenatal genetic counseling could benefit from an exploration of clients' experiential knowledge, both empathetic and embodied forms.
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 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 | 0.017 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it