Counseling lesbian patients about getting pregnant.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe an approach to counseling lesbian patients about getting pregnant. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: Information in this paper is based on evidence from randomized controlled trials (level I evidence), non-randomized trials (level II evidence), expert opinion (level III evidence), and government regulations. MAIN MESSAGE: We review 5 steps that comprise an approach to counseling lesbian patients about getting pregnant safely and efficiently. These steps are preconception care (including counseling, testing, and immunization); donor choice (including explaining the risks and benefits of choosing between a known or anonymous donor and the difference between fresh and frozen semen); donor testing (including Health Canada's requirements for semen processing and recommendations for testing before home insemination); ordering the semen (including information about sperm banks and the need for "Canadian compliant" semen); and the insemination process (including techniques for monitoring ovulation and various methods of insemination). CONCLUSION: Primary care physicians can help lesbians achieve pregnancy by providing education, testing, referrals, and insemination services.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".