La santé environnementale en santé reproductive : quel rôle pour les professionnels de santé ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: In 2005, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics recommanded for preventive measures to protect individuals of childbearing age and for pregnant women against chemicals and toxics. It advocated the integration of environmental health in care pathway. The role of health professionals has been highlighted, but what is the real possible role of them in this new public health issue? Objectives: Identify the obstacles and levers to the promotion of environmental health among patients with fertility disorders and among pregnant women by health professionals. Method: A qualitative survey was conducted in the form of semi-structured interviews with 9 health professionals. 6 of them worked in a medically assisted procreation center in Occitanie. And 3 other health professionals worked with pregnant women, 2 in a hospital in Occitanie and one in liberal activity in the Toulouse suburbs. Results: The results of the survey highlighted the representations of the environment of health professionals, the resources on which they can rely as well as the obstacles to which solutions must be sought. Discussion: Recommendations and certain avenues for reflection have been developed to promote environmental health, according to the five axes of the Ottawa Charter.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.003 |
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".