MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018603737 · doi:10.1017/s0965539514000047

MODE OF DELIVERY IN TERM AND PRETERM TWINS: A REVIEW

2014· review· en· W2018603737 on OpenAlexaff
Dini Hui, Jon Barrett

Bibliographic record

VenueFetal and Maternal Medicine Review · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersAmerican Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
KeywordsMedicinePreterm deliveryPsychological interventionObstetricsSingletonIncidence (geometry)Twin PregnancyTerm (time)PregnancyFetusNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The incidence of twin pregnancy has risen substantially over the past decade, likely largely as a consequence of artificial reproductive technologies. The perennial dilemmas that apply to any singleton delivery, such as intrapartum monitoring and operative interventions are compounded by the presence of the second fetus. There is no doubt that the conduct of a twin delivery remains one of the most challenging events in the daily practice of obstetrics.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFetal and Maternal Medicine ReviewSame topicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin PregnancyFrench-language works237,207