Responsabilité des professionnels de la santé lors du dépistage et du diagnostic prénataux
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present paper deals with civil responsibility of health professionals, more precisely with regards to prenatal screening and diagnostic. This essay furthermore addresses the issue of damages resulting from health professionals' fault. The first part of this paper encloses Chapters 1 to 3, which address the issue of generally recognized standards of practice which health professionals exercising in this particular sphere of activities have to comply with. As a matter of fact, this section also deals with the responsibility of these professionals, notably with regards to the divulgation of inadequate information, negligence in the elaboration of patient's anamnesis, interpretation of inadequate data (unascertained markers) or non recognized standards of practice pertaining to the echographia technique. The second part of this paper encloses Chapter 4, which particularly elucidates the outof- date belief that a newborn, whose handicap results from a prenatal screening or diagnostic fault, has not suffered damages resulting from one's health professional's fault. In fact, through the substitutability theory or through the theory rejecting the preconceived idea that a handicapped life can only be better than inexistence, the author, referring to multiple jurisdictions such as France, United States and Canada, opines that the evolution of law and science should entitle a handicapped child to sue the health professional who denied his mother the abortion.
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 | 0.025 |
| 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 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.002 |
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".