Cesarean and Vaginal Birth in Canadian Women: A Comparison of Experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many publications have examined the reasons behind the rising cesarean delivery rate around the world. Women's responses to the Maternity Experiences Survey of the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System were examined to explore correlates of having a cesarean section on other experiences surrounding labor, birth, mother-infant contact, and breastfeeding. METHODS: A randomly selected sample of 8,244 estimated eligible women stratified primarily by province and territory was drawn from the May 2006 Canadian Census. Completed responses were obtained from 6,421 women (78%). RESULTS: Three-quarters of the women (73.7%) gave birth vaginally and 26.3 percent by cesarean section, including 13.5 percent with a planned cesarean and 12.8 percent with an unplanned cesarean. In addition to more interventions in labor, women who had a cesarean birth after attempting a vaginal birth had less mother-infant contact after birth and less optimal breastfeeding practices. CONCLUSION: Findings from the Maternity Experiences Survey indicated that women who have cesarean births experience more interventions during labor and birth and have less optimal birthing and early parenting outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".