Maternal obesity in pregnancy: Women's understanding of risks
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: To explore obese women's perceptions of obesity as a risk factor in pregnancy and their experiences of NHS maternity care. Methods: Open-ended, semi-structured interviews were used to gain an in-depth understanding of participants’ experiences. Eight women were interviewed in their own homes in Edinburgh and the surrounding area. All had a pregnancy of beyond 34 weeks’ gestation and had a body mass index (BMI) greater than 40 kg/m 2 at pregnancy booking. Findings: Participants were aware of obesity as a risk factor in pregnancy, but this awareness had developed only during the index pregnancy. Some participants felt the significant risks posed by obesity in pregnancy had not been explained adequately to them, both prior to and early in the pregnancy. This had caused significant anxiety in some cases. Conclusions: There is a need for opportunistic health promotion aimed at disseminating information about the risks of obesity in pregnancy to overweight and obese women of childbearing age. In addition, midwives need guidance in discussing this sensitive issue with women, in order to promote open communication and effective clinical care.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it