MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014996177 · doi:10.1080/07399332.2013.815756

Experiences of Women With Physical Disabilities During the Perinatal Period: A Review of the Literature and Recommendations to Improve Care

2013· review· en· W2014996177 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

VenueHealth Care For Women International · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Rights and Representation
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerinatal periodChildbirthAffect (linguistics)CurriculumHealth carePostpartum periodMedicinePregnancyPsychologyPeriod (music)NursingFamily medicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although pregnancy and childbirth have significant identity and health implications for all women, perinatal research has focused primarily on nondisabled women. In this article, I provide a review of literature regarding the perinatal care experiences of women with physical disabilities. I found that many women with physical disabilities encounter attitudinal, informational, physical, and financial barriers during the perinatal period that contribute to poor care experiences and may subsequently affect health outcomes. In an effort to improve perinatal care experiences and outcomes, I offer recommendations to address the barriers identified in the literature, including increased disability content in medical school curricula.

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)0.000
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.574
Threshold uncertainty score0.353

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.373 · 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