MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Effect of Pregnancy on Hypnotizability

2009· article· en· W2024348631 on OpenAlex
Beth Alexander, Deborah Turnbull, Allan M Cyna

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Clinical Hypnosis · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Windsor
KeywordsPregnancyChildbirthHypnosisThird trimesterObstetricsPsychological interventionMedicinePsychologyGestationPsychiatryAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hypnosis during pregnancy and childbirth has been shown to reduce labor analgesia use and other medical interventions. We aimed to investigate whether there was a difference in hypnotizability in pregnant and nonpregnant women. Study participants had hypnotizability measured by the Creative Imagination Scale (CIS) in the third trimester of pregnancy and subsequently between 14 and 28 months postpartum and when not pregnant. The 37 participants who completed the study gave birth in the largest maternity unit in South Australia between January 2006 and March 2007. CIS scores were increased in women when pregnant (Mean 23.5, SD 6.9) compared to when they were not pregnant (Mean 18.7, SD 6.6), p < 0.001. The mean effect size was 0.84 suggesting that the hypnotizability change was both statistically significant and clinically meaningful. Our study findings support previous evidence showing that women are more hypnotizable when pregnant than when not pregnant.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.647
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.384 · 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