Male physicians treating Femalepatients: Issues, Controversiesand Gynecology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The most precious and sacred form of personal information that we possess is our body. It is our own flesh and blood, which holds and sustains our being. Our body is our instrument for living. It is so personal and intimate that we frequently hide it, as though its public display would be a natural source of shame. Michel de Montaigne, the French Renaissance author, puts it well: Man is the sole animal whose nudity offends his own companions and the only one who, in his natural actions, withdraws and hides himself from his own kind (1). Thus, it not surprising that visiting a physician and allowing for an intricate inspection and examination of our dearest possession, our body, is a source of trepidation and anxiety for us. Perhaps the deepest level of vulnerability in an exam is the genital and pelvic examination. A glimpse into history demonstrates that until very recently, pelvic examinations in women were handled by females, likely to ensure comfort and privacy all the while preventing improper interactions from male counterparts.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".