Focusing on relationships, not information, respects autonomy during antenatal consultations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Policy statements regarding antenatal consultations for preterm labour are guided by physicians' concerns for upholding the legal doctrine of informed consent, through the provision of standardised homogeneous medical information. This approach, led by classical in-control conceptions of patient autonomy, conceives moral agents as rational, independent, self-sufficient decision-makers. Recent studies on these antenatal consultations have explored patients' perspectives, and these differ from guidelines' suggestions. Relational autonomy - which understands moral agents as rational, emotional, creative and interdependent - resonates impressively with these new data. CONCLUSION: A model for antenatal consultations is proposed. This approach encourages clinicians to explore individual patients' lived experiences and engage in trusting empowering relationships. Moreover, it calls on physicians to enhance patients' relational autonomy by becoming advocates for their patients within healthcare institutions and professional organisations, while calling for broadscale policy changes to encourage further funding and support in investigations of the patient's voice.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".