MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077604996 · doi:10.1177/1363459312460702

Ills from the womb? A critical examination of clinical guidelines for obesity in pregnancy

2012· article· en· W2077604996 on OpenAlex
Shannon Jetté, Geneviève Rail

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health Illness and Medicine · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicObesity and Health Practices
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicinePregnancyObjectivity (philosophy)Context (archaeology)Clinical PracticeNursingEpistemologyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we critically examine the clinical guidelines for obesity in pregnancy put forth by the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC) that are underpinned by the rules of Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM), a system of ranking knowledge that promises to provide unbiased evidence about the effectiveness of treatments. While the SOGC guidelines are intended to direct health practitioners on 'best practice' as they address pregnancy weight gain with clients in the clinical context, we question their usefulness, arguing that despite their commitment to objectivity, they remain mired in cultural biases that stigmatize large female bodies and associates them to 'unfit' mothers.

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)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.415
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0130.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.409
GPT teacher head0.655
Teacher spread0.246 · 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