MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Las parteras y/o comadronas del siglo XVI: el manual de Damiá Carbó

2005· article· es· W2014906774 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

VenueTexto & Contexto - Enfermagem · 2005
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies on Spain
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.551
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.008

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 head0.300
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.118 · 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