Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known about how birth outcomes vary in rural areas by degree of rural isolation. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all births in Quebec, 1991-2000 to assess birth outcomes by the degree of rural isolation according to metropolitan influence as measured by work force commuting flows between rural and urban areas. Compared with urban areas, crude risks of preterm birth, small-for-gestational age birth, stillbirth, neonatal death and postneonatal death were similar in rural areas with strong metropolitan influence, but were significantly higher for preterm birth, stillbirth and postneonatal death in rural areas with weak or no metropolitan influence, and for neonatal death in rural areas with no metropolitan influence. Adjustment for maternal characteristics (age, mother tongue, education, marital status, parity, plurality and infant sex) attenuated the associations. The adjusted odds ratios [95% confidence intervals] were 1.36 [1.12, 1.64] for stillbirth in rural areas with weak metropolitan influence, 1.63 [1.14, 2.32] for neonatal death in rural areas with no metropolitan influence, 1.78 [1.21, 2.63] and 1.37 [1.07, 1.75] for postneonatal death in rural areas with weak and no metropolitan influence, respectively. Much higher neonatal death rates were observed for preterm or low-birthweight babies in rural areas with no metropolitan influence, suggesting inadequate access to optimal neonatal care. We conclude that birth outcomes in rural areas differ according to the degree of rural isolation. Fetuses and infants of mothers from rural areas with weak or no metropolitan influence are particularly vulnerable to the risks of death during the perinatal and postnatal periods.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".