MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7037681771

Entre attentes maternelles et objectifs médicaux : l'échographie fœtale est-elle source de malentendus ?

2021· dissertation· en· W7037681771 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueHAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe) · 2021
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrder (exchange)PregnancyFocus (optics)Work (physics)Subject (documents)Quarter (Canadian coin)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fetal ultrasound is a major examination in pregnancy follow up. It is important for both prenatal nursing staff: screening of fetal anomalies, delivery term, monitoring and also for women/couples. Publications on this subjetc focus on psychological aspects but also on ethical stakes surrounding this specific examination. Some writers have been describing a misunderstanding regarding the purposes of fetal ultrasound: medical objectives standardized with professional and ethical requirements and material goals based on emotions and encounter. In this study, we have chosen to question this misunderstanding with women giving birth, before their ultrasound exam. In order to do so, we have arranged meetings with women, before their first quarter ultrsound, to ask them about their expectations and feelings. The purposes of this work were to identify and understand maternal expectations with regards to this ultrasound exam and also to evaluate their knowledge as well as the medical information given, in order to have a better understanding of the context. It appears that women need to visualize their fetus in order to make their pregnancy a reality and be reassured on the positive evolution of the pregnancy. They have a partial kwowledge of ultrasound examination and the medical information is quite poor. However it seems that in the end, they are quite aware of medical stakes even though the latter are not clearly meaningful. Consequently, in our study, we could only find a partial misunderstanding with regards to the misunderstanding described in publications, we think therefore that it is more accurate to qualify this misunderstanding as a discrepancy between maternal expectations and the medical objectives of ultrasound examinations. It appears to us that, in the end, this discprepancy is quite classic and normal, as emotions are not all the same. However it seems that the medical information surrounding fetal ultrasound, so as to obtain maternal consent for various screenings, should be pondered in order to be improved.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.238 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe)→Same topicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→