Bibliographic record
Abstract
Circumcision is undoubtedly the most frequently performed operation on males in the United States today. Between 69% and 97% of American males and one-seventh of the world's males are circumcised, with a frequency of 70% in Australia, 48% in Canada, and 24% in the United Kingdom. Yet this procedure is distinctly uncommon in Northern Europe, Central and South America,and Asia (Kaplan, 1977; Speert, 1953). Within the last few decades the logic of routine neonatal circumcision has been challenged. The Committee on Fetus and Newborn of the American Academy of Pediatrics stated in 1971 that there are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period. In 1975 the Committee reviewed the data and found no basis for changing this statement. Traditional, cultural, and religious factors all should play a part in the decision to circumcise, and the final decision of the parents should be one of informed consent (Committee, 1975). Nevertheless, the Committee did elaborate on their statement at a later date, stating that they did not advocate the abandonment of circumcision, but could define no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn (Committee, 1977). Other medical authorities have continued to advocate routine neonatal circumcision and the literature on both sides of the argument continues to increase. This paper shall investigate the indications for, benefits from, and complications of circumcision, in order that accurate informed consent may be given.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.058 | 0.096 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".