Perceptions of women, nurses, midwives and doctors about the use of video during birth to improve quality of care: focus group discussions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Please cite this paper as: van Lonkhuijzen L, Groenewout M, Schreuder A, Zeeman G, Scherpbier A, Aukes L, van den Berg P. Perceptions of women, nurses, midwives and doctors about the use of video during birth to improve quality of care: focus group discussions. BJOG 2011; DOI:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.02943.x. The use of video during birth for quality of care was discussed in focus groups with women, nurses, midwives and doctors. Qualitative analysis revealed three categories of importance. First, goals and benefits: improving quality of care, teaching, research and legal issues are important potential applications. Second, limitations: concerns for privacy, fear of feedback and use of video in case of adverse events. Third, rules and regulations: goals and scope of the use of video need to be clearly described, access to video needs to be secured, and time until destruction needs to be specified. Video capture of birth is considered useful and seems acceptable if specific conditions are met.
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 | 0.024 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".