MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3005949671 · doi:10.1136/ebnurs-2019-103203

Ethical dilemmas and legal ambivalence affects the midwives’ perception for providing sexual and reproductive health consultation to women with intellectual disability

2020· letter· en· W3005949671 on OpenAlexaff
Iffat Naeem, Tanvir Chowdhury Turin

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Nursing · 2020
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Rights and Representation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntellectual disabilityAutonomyAmbivalenceHarmReproductive healthHealth careReproductive rightsFocus groupPerceptionPsychologyNursingMedicineGender studiesSociologyPolitical scienceSocial psychologyPsychiatryLawPopulationEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Commentary on: Hoglund B and Larsson M. Ethical dilemmas and legal aspects in contraceptive counselling for women with intellectual disability—Focus group interviews among midwives in Sweden. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil 2019;33:1558–66. Although United Nations conventions dictate equal rights to sexual and reproductive health for women with intellectual disability (ID),1 there are disparities faced by these women when accessing such care.2 Swedish healthcare follows the ethical principles, including fairness, doing good, not doing harm, and respecting autonomy, that prove difficult to …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.680
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.077
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.300 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based NursingSame topicDisability Rights and RepresentationFrench-language works237,207