MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069260865 · doi:10.1177/1066480701092006

“If We had it to Do Over Again...”: Couples’ Reflections on their Experiences of Infertility Treatments

2001· article· en· W2069260865 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Family Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInfertilityNarrativeFertilityCoping (psychology)PsychologyNarrative reviewPsychotherapistAssisted reproductive technologyReproductive technologySocial psychologyMedicineDevelopmental psychologyPregnancyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A narrative approach was used to examine the experiences of 65 infertile couples that had undergone various types of medical investigations and treatments, ranging from the use of fertility drugs to repeated attempts at conception using other reproductive technologies, in their efforts to produce a child. Participants, who had pursued medical solutions to their fertility problems for an average of 5 years, reflected on their experiences during in-depth interviews. The shared narrative that characterized their experiences is presented, and recommendations are made to assist those who work with families in meeting the needs of couples as they attempt to cope with the challenges of making decisions about, and coping with, infertility treatments.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.527
Threshold uncertainty score0.263

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.291 · 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