MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

IN THE LITERATURE:Combating Coercion: Breech Birth, Parturient Choice, and the Evolution of Evidence‐Based Maternity Care

2007· letter· en· W1971276817 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBirth · 2007
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsGovernment of Northwest Territories
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoercion (linguistics)Maternity careBreech presentationMedicineObstetricsVaginal birthPregnancyPsychologyFamily medicineNursingHealth careLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: In 2001 the term breech trial led the American and Royal Colleges of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG and RCOG) to issue black‐and‐white “cookbook” guidelines condemning vaginal breech birth. Since then, women have been coerced, both overtly and covertly, into having cesarean sections. New evidence and a better understanding of the limitations of the term breech trial have led both the ACOG and RCOG to replace their 2001 guidelines with new ones that re‐open the door for planned vaginal breech birth, acknowledge the evolving understanding of the nature of evidence, and emphasize the importance of external validity in the evaluation of complex phenomena. Parturient choice and clinical judgment are re‐introduced. (BIRTH 34:2 June 2007)

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.440
Threshold uncertainty score0.553

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.287 · 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