MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002340766 · doi:10.1136/ebn.5.2.61

Fathers experienced stillbirth as a waste of life and needed to protect their partners and express grief in their own way

2002· letter· en· W2002340766 on OpenAlexaff
Cynthia Kitson

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Nursing · 2002
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsQueensway-Carleton Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeelingGriefDenialMedicineDisappointmentGynecologyPediatricsPsychologyPsychiatryPsychoanalysisSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Samuelsson M, Radestad I, Segesten K. A waste of life: fathers' experience of losing a child before birth. Birth2001 Jun; 28 : 124 –30 [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] QUESTION: How do fathers experience the intrauterine death of their child? Phenomenology. Sweden. 11 fathers (age range 31–46 y) whose partners had stillborn children at 32–42 weeks of pregnancy in 1997 and 1998. 6 fathers already had children. 4 fathers had become fathers again after the stillbirth, and 4 of the men′s partners were pregnant at the time of the study. Fathers were interviewed 5–27 months after the stillbirth in the venue of their choice (at home or the hospital). Interviews of 25 minutes to 2 hours in length were taped and transcribed. The transcripts were analysed to identify meaningful central units. (1) Experiencing that the baby was no longer alive : 8 fathers had a premonition that something was wrong before being told about the stillbirth, but they still had hope. Fathers described feelings of impending catastrophe (including shock, a lack of feeling, and denial). They also described great disappointment when their preparations and expectations for the baby were thwarted. Most fathers found … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DBirth%2B%2528Berkeley%252C%2BCalif.%2529%26rft.stitle%253DBirth%26rft.aulast%253DSamuelsson%26rft.auinit1%253DM.%26rft.volume%253D28%26rft.issue%253D2%26rft.spage%253D124%26rft.epage%253D130%26rft.atitle%253DA%2Bwaste%2Bof%2Blife%253A%2Bfathers%2527%2Bexperience%2Bof%2Blosing%2Ba%2Bchild%2Bbefore%2Bbirth.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1046%252Fj.1523-536X.2001.00124.x%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F11380384%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1046/j.1523-536X.2001.00124.x&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=11380384&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F5%2F2%2F61.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000168872000008&link_type=ISI

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations8
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based NursingSame topicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207