MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

WHO Principles of Perinatal Care: The Essential Antenatal, Perinatal, and Postpartum Care Course

2001· review· en· W2033986693 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

VenueBirth · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicChild and Adolescent Health
Canadian institutionsCoalition for Research in Women's HealthHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersChina Construction Eighth Engineering Division
KeywordsHealth careMedicineNursingMaternity careFamily medicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations and meta-analyses of controlled trials have concluded that inappropriate perinatal care and technology continue to be practiced widely throughout the world, despite the acceptance of evidence-based principles and care. The WHO Regional Office for Europe, in consultation with policy makers and reproductive health experts recently proposed ten "Principles of Perinatal Care," which have been endorsed by the reproductive health units of most member states. A comprehensive training program, based on the principles, is now being offered throughout the European region. This paper describes the development of the WHO principles and the WHO training course "Essential Antenatal, Perinatal and Postpartum Care." Together they provide an innovative model of evidence-based and psychosocially sensitive care for the future guidance of perinatal policy makers and caregivers worldwide.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.353 · 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