MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020581159 · doi:10.12968/bjom.2001.9.9.9418

Caesarean section in Scotland

2001· article· en· W2020581159 on OpenAlexaff
Lesley Page

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Midwifery · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsChildren's & Women's Health Centre of British ColumbiaUniversity of British ColumbiaProvidence Health Care
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCaesarean sectionSection (typography)OfficerHistoryMedicineDemographyObstetricsPregnancySociologyBusinessArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The overall rate of caesarean section (CS) in Scotland has risen from 5% in 1970 to 19.7% in 1999. So now 1 in 5 Scottish women have their babies through a CS. An Expert Advisory Group on Caesarean Section in Scotland (EAGoCS) was set up to review caesarean birth in Scotland because of concern with the constant rise in the rate. The report of the EAGoCS to the Chief Medical Officer (2001) is of relevance to all those concerned with the rise in the caesarean section rate wherever they may live. Scotland, like England, has one of the highest CS rates in the world, with the exception of Latin America. The cause of such a trend is always complex. In general a high CS rate is associated with the gross national product, in other words with national affluence.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.345
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.288 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of MidwiferySame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207