Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent research in the USA has shown the advantages for children's welfare of open fetal surgery over postnatal treatment for myelomeningocele. However, a balance must be struck between complications of premature birth risked by prenatal surgery and the long-term advantages for affected children's health, including mobility and neurologic capacity. Risks for women are repeated surgery for intervention and delivery. The research raises legal and ethical questions about how fetal interests should influence women's choices, and whether women may decline interventions in their pregnancies that offer their children lifelong advantages. Beyond fetal interests and women's preferences are state interests in fetal life, which in the USA and elsewhere have been expressed in judicially authorized cesarean deliveries. Underlying issues are the nature of fetal interests; contrasting entitlements to care from their mothers of fetuses and born children; healthcare providers' responsibilities toward fetuses; and duties of care, information, and advice to pregnant women.
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 | 0.099 | 0.145 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.032 | 0.028 |
| 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".