Making the cut: a phenomenological study of the parental decision-making process for neonatal circumcision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Male circumcision is one of the most common paediatric surgeries. Most research has concentrated on assessing medical risks versus benefits, yet the majority of infant circumcisions are performed for social reasons. A few studies have surveyed reasons for circumcising/not circumcising. However, they have not revealed the decision-making process. Drawing upon embodiment theories, this study explored expectant parents’ decision-making about circumcision. Interviews were conducted with six individuals. Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis was utilized to identify themes. Findings revealed eight major themes, including ‘gender jurisdiction’ (whether fathers should have more decision-making power than mothers). Another centred on deciding whose body was the focus – the baby’s or the father’s. All participants perceived bias, both pro- and anti-circumcision, in the information they received from health professionals. They expressed a strong need for objective information and support. The findings may be helpful to obstetricians, paediatricians, and midwives – as well as individuals and families facing this decision.
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".