MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982275301 · doi:10.12968/bjom.2012.20.7.477

Women's perception of the term ‘obstetrician’

2012· article· en· W1982275301 on OpenAlexaff
Charlotte Kenyon, Alison Hills, Cathy Winter, Timothy Draycott, Robert Fox, Dimitrios Siassakos

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Midwifery · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Research and Practices
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObstetrics and gynaecologyFeelingTerm (time)Meaning (existential)PreferencePsychologyMedicinePerceptionDescriptive researchFamily medicineObstetricsSocial psychologyPregnancySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to find how aware pregnant women were of the meaning of the term ‘obstetrician’, their feelings about it, and their understanding of the role. The perceptions of pregnant women attending the antenatal clinic of a tertiary maternity unit were surveyed using an anonymous questionnaire. One hundred questionnaires were issued and 83 completed. Of the 83, 72 (87%) had previously heard the term ‘obstetrician’, but 50 (69%) of these did not know its meaning. Most women described neutral connotations with the term and had no preference about the term used; however, approximately one-third of the participants preferred non-Latin terms such as maternity doctor. A more descriptive term may help bridge the apparent gap in understanding and promote a more balanced doctor–service user relationship.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.344 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of MidwiferySame topicMedical Research and PracticesFrench-language works237,207