Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexism has been an issue in bleeding disorders for centuries. Women with bleeding disorders have been underrecognized and underdiagnosed. Those who are diagnosed often experience delays in diagnosis and feel that their symptoms are dismissed or minimized. Several factors contribute to this sexism. Historically, the clinical and research focus within the bleeding disorder community has been on men and hemophilia. Von Willebrand disease, a disease that has long been recognized as affecting women, is much more common than hemophilia, yet has significantly fewer resources devoted to it. The lack of knowledge and comfort that patients and health care providers have regarding menstruation compounds the issue, as heavy menstrual bleeding is one of the most common symptoms seen in women with bleeding disorders. Stemming from the universal stigmatization of periods, this lack of comfort and knowledge results in fewer women seeking care, fewer health care providers addressing the issue, and fewer women getting the care they deserve. Progress has been made, with many organizations dedicating resources to improving the care of these women. The road is long, and much more work is needed to ensure that women with bleeding disorders receive the care they deserve.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".