Bibliographic record
Abstract
Declining Circumcision for My Premature Newborn Dionne Deschenne In 1993, I was pregnant with my first of three sons and was busy preparing for his arrival. Unlike most parents, who focus much of their time on decorating the nursery and buying supplies, I was researching the medical decisions that I would need to make in the moments and weeks following his birth. Having worked in a hospital while a pre-medicine student, I had heard the cries of babies undergoing tests and procedures shortly after birth and knew I needed to be clear on the necessity of those tests and procedures if I was going to consent to them for my baby. My husband was in the Navy and out to sea for six months, so I took a few college courses to pass the time. One was a philosophy course on ethics, and I chose the bioethics of infant male circumcision as the focal point of my coursework that quarter. This allowed me to work through my findings in a racially, religiously, and age-diverse classroom under the guidance of a skilled professor. I was shocked to learn that even the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) at that time acknowledged that there were no known medical benefits that resulted from circumcision. How, I wondered, could parents allow their newborns to undergo such a harrowing experience for no reason? As the months passed and the birth of our first son grew nearer, I had everything ready—all of the decisions made, the doctors prepared, and the hospital selected. All of that preparation went out the proverbial window when I contracted pneumonia at 30 weeks. I was admitted to the Naval Hospital and treated for a week before being airlifted to a nearby Army Hospital when my condition worsened. After a few days there, the doctor came in very early one morning to wake me. Our son's heart rate was slowing, and we were at risk of losing him. They needed to immediately perform an emergency Cesarean section to preserve his life. I was terrified, knowing the potential myriad adverse effects his pre-term birth could cause. We were rushed into the OR and within seconds I had an epidural in my back. Moments later, my perfect, tiny but silent baby was whisked from the room to be attended to by a highly skilled and immensely respected NICU team. My husband followed to keep a watchful eye on our son while I was taken to Recovery. A few hours later, I was allowed to join my husband and son in the NICU. Our baby was beautiful, but so tiny that my husband could hold him in one hand. He weighed four pounds and had an enormous needle in the top of his head. The nurse explained to me that the IV needle was in the best location for administering the IV fluids and medications that our baby needed. His pre-term birth had introduced the need for several tests and treatments I had not anticipated. This was immensely distressing for me as someone who wanted to research and understand so that I could make well-informed and ethical decisions. Keep in mind that this was in the days before smartphones. In fact, we didn't even have cell phones at that time! In order to do research, I needed to find a medical text within the hospital that I could read, or get to a library. I had an abdomen full of staples, couldn't drive, and refused to be away from my baby, so going to the library was not an option. Under the conditions, I relied on the hospital staff to help me understand the risks, benefits, and necessities of each procedure or test that they recommended. We formed a relationship of mutual respect. I think this was due to the in-depth [End Page 89] conversations we had during that time. That mutual respect we developed likely led to a remarkable conversation toward the end of our son's first week in the NICU. Our doctor was making his rounds when a nurse asked if we wanted to have our son circumcised that day since the doctor...
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".