MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987524760 · doi:10.1258/td.2009.080433

Delivery room logbook – fact or fiction?

2009· article· en· W1987524760 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

VenueTropical Doctor · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsThe Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLogbookMedicineAuditCaesarean sectionMedical emergencyWorksheetEmergency medicinePediatricsPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The delivery room logbook entries of Gimbie Adventist Hospital for a period of one month were monitored and compared with the actual number of births recorded on a separate worksheet for that period. The implications of the missing data were reviewed. This data was compared to a previous audit of the same design. Eighty per cent of births were recorded during this one month period which reflected an improvement from 72% reported in a previous study. Underreporting resulted in discrepencies when calculating the number of births and signal functions such as caesarean section rates, blood transfusion, administration of parenteral anticonvulsants and removal of retained products. In turn, these discrepencies impact the calculation of process indicators of safe motherhood projects. The reliability of the delivery room logbook as the sole source of information to create health policy and to monitor and evaluate health programs is questionable.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.257
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.284 · 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