MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Women's Experience With Social Presence During Childbirth

2007· article· en· W2010894259 on OpenAlexaff
Sheri Price, Jennifer Noseworthy, Juliet Thornton

Bibliographic record

VenueMCN The American Journal of Maternal/Child Nursing · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsGovernment of Newfoundland and LabradorIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChildbirthThematic analysisQualitative researchMeaning (existential)PsychologyNursingSocial supportInterpersonal relationshipPostpartum periodHealth careValue (mathematics)MedicineDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyPregnancySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To explore the meaning and significance women attach to family and friend presence during childbirth within a tertiary care birth unit. DESIGN AND METHODS: Qualitative descriptive study using interviews conducted with 16 women in the immediate postpartum period after vaginal birth. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Overall, women revealed that they greatly value companionship and social support in labor. The women's choice of who would be present was often related to who "knew them best." They chose to have individuals present not for the purpose of visiting but to provide support and share in the birth experience. The women believed that decisions regarding visitation in labor were theirs to make and as a result often didn't discuss their choices with healthcare professionals beforehand. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The findings have implications for family-centered maternity care and visitation policy development. Nurses who work in the childbearing area should be aware of women's desires for supportive friends and relatives during the birthing process and work toward helping women achieve their goals for a supportive birth experience.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.445
Threshold uncertainty score0.414

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations50
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMCN The American Journal of Maternal/Child NursingSame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207