Las parteras y/o comadronas del siglo XVI: el manual de Damiá Carbó
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El propósito de este artículo es reflexionar sobre la manera cómo pensaba las cuestiones de la salud reproductiva de las mujeres y de los niños, un médico de Mallorca, quien en el año de 1541 redactó un pequeño manual sobre obstetrícia, ginecología y pediatría. Partiéndose de la situación actual de los estudios de la obstetricia y de su evolución histórica, se realiza una revisión de la literatura sobre el manual de Carbó y un análisis crítico del documento en donde se contextualizan y examinan las propuestas del autor, con respecto a las actitudes que debería reunir la matrona y/o partera, sus competencias y destrezas. La enfermera/obstetra de la época gozaba de prestigio social, los médicos aprovechando su experiencia se constituyen en actores de los cuidados obstétricos y utilizan la formación de la partera como un vehículo de autopromoción. Carbó concibió a las parteras como las expertas en su arte, con buena disposición física, ingeniosas, discretas, honradas y buenas cristianas.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".