Bibliographic record
Abstract
All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Can adian Medical Association. 872 CMAJ, April 19, 2011, 183(7) © 2011 Canadian Medical Association or its licensors The most commonly performedsurgical procedure in the world — male circumcision — is done for therapeutic, prophylactic, religious, cultural and social reasons. Discussions of male infant circumcision for health reasons are always split. Proponents sug-gest there are significant potential health benefits including a decreased risk for some sexually transmitted infections, a decrease in HPV-related penile cancer and reduced phimosis, paraphimosis.1 On the other hand, opponents comment on the complication rate of 1.5%1,2 and only modest benefits, while noting that it is a painful procedure for neonates with pos-sible long-lasting effects such as lower-ing the threshold for pain,2 and that it is based on tradition not evidence.2 For more than a decade, the Ameri-can, Canadian and Australian pediatric specialists organizations have not recom-mended routine infant circumcision, not-ing that the existing evidence was insuf-ficient to support it. Each of these organizations regularly reviews its guide-line statements to determine if positions need to be updated. The question now is whether the findings from the random-ized trials of adult male circumcision in sub-Saharan Africa that show circumci-sion halves the risk of acquiring HIV and decreases risk for HSV-2, and high-risk HPV in heterosexual African adult men3 push these organizations to change their positions on routine infant circumcision. The Paediatrics & Child Health Divi-
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.735 | 0.450 |
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".