MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030355174 · doi:10.1586/eog.12.73

Assessment of labor progress

2012· article· en· W2030355174 on OpenAlexaff
Mary Higgins, Dan Farine

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Obstetrics & Gynecology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSection (typography)Preterm laborLabour economicsPregnancyEconomicsFetusBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Worldwide, the rate of delivery by cesarean section is increasing, such that the cesarean section rate is often greater than 30%. The reasons for this increase are many, but a major reason for this change is related to our relatively poor ability to manage labor. This review attempts to cover the issues that contribute to this. Issues regarding definition, assessment and management of labor progress as well as critical times in labor will be examined. Types of partograms are discussed as well as the maternal and fetal factors that influence progress of labor. To be able to care for women in labor, it is important to be aware of limitations of management and how best to overcome these.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.768
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0030.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.393 · 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

Citations14
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Obstetrics & GynecologySame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207