MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Waiting For Something to Happen: Hospitalization with Placenta Previa

2001· article· en· W2052412321 on OpenAlexaff
Anne Katz

Bibliographic record

VenueBirth · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and fetal healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlacenta previaMedicineObstetricsFeelingPregnancyGestationPlacentaPsychologyFetus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Placenta previa occurs in approximately 1 of every 200 pregnancies. No research examining women's experiences of this condition has been published. The objective of this study was to describe the experience of women hospitalized with placenta previa. METHODS: A descriptive study was conducted using a convenience sample of 10 pregnant women who had been hospitalized with placenta previa. Women were recruited from a tertiary care hospital and participated in two semistructured interviews during the pregnancy and one after the baby's birth while in hospital. They were admitted to hospital from 28 weeks' gestation and remained in hospital until delivery, generally at 36 weeks' gestation. Transcripts of the interviews were analyzed using content analysis to describe their experience. RESULTS: Six themes were identified from the descriptions of the experience as related by the participants. They encompassed the experience from the first symptoms to feelings about the experience after the baby was born. CONCLUSIONS: Women with placenta previa experience significant stressors while in hospital. Health caregivers should be aware of the loss of control and isolation these women feel and be mindful of the potential for sequelae in the postpartum period.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations12
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBirthSame topicMaternal and fetal healthcareFrench-language works237,207