MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2257786184

When the baby breaks: exposing the nerves of neonatal bioethics.

2011· dissertation· en· W2257786184 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jaimie Smith-Windsor

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioethicsEugenicsNeonatologyNexus (standard)NarrativeMedicinePsychologyPolitical sciencePediatricsLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neonatal intensive care is an ambiguous and anxious medicine with troubling un/intended consequences. The causes and increasing prevalence of premature birth, available histories and the establishment hospital-based neonatology are presented, with a particular focus on American and Canadian contexts. The thesis traces neonatal medicine’s unlikely swerve through early-American freakshow culture, considers the influence of the eugenics movement, and spans decades of haphazard clinical experimentation with premature babies. Of particular interest is the complex nexus between neonatology and disability and what new technologies reveal about deep-rooted human desires and fears about life, death and disability. Incorporating statistical data, policy analysis and clinical trends with personal, parent and practitioner narratives leads to provocative ethical questions about neonatology’s growing powers. This thesis draws on critical disability theory and contemporary critical theories concerning technology, and builds towards a conception of disability that is separate from the medical paradigm, somewhat unorthodox, and certainly post conventional.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.028
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0050.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare→French-language works237,207→