MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Assessing the needs of assisted reproductive technology users of an online bulletin board

2005· article· en· W2064243288 on OpenAlexaff
Susan Wingert, Carol D. H. Harvey, Karen A. Duncan, Ruth E. Berry

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Consumer Studies · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess (computing)Bulletin boardInternet privacySocial mediaBusinessBulletin board systemAssisted reproductive technologyMarketingAdvertisingPublic relationsPsychologyPregnancyThe InternetComputer scienceInfertilityPolitical scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Consumers who are infertile and decide to use assisted reproductive technologies undergo lengthy, expensive and potentially risky medical procedures in their quest for a pregnancy and a live birth. In this research we use a consumer model of decision making to analyse the process. We review information available to consumers and we assess use of an online bulletin board which gives consumers social support and medical information during the process. We conclude with the needs for consumer education and protection.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.665
Threshold uncertainty score0.381

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.331 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations24
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Consumer StudiesSame topicReproductive Health and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207