MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Quick Fix Culture: The Cesarean‐Section‐on‐Demand Debate

2004· editorial· en· W2079465974 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michael Klein

Bibliographic record

VenueBirth · 2004
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsChildren's & Women's Health Centre of British ColumbiaBC Research (Canada)University of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWonderChildbirthCaesarean sectionObstetricsVaginal birthSection (typography)PsychologyPregnancyBusinessSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Cesarean-Section-on-Demand Debate … So frequent these bad effects [of labour] that I often wonder whether nature did not deliberately intend women to be used up in the process of reproduction, in a matter analogous to that of the salmon, which dies after spawning."

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.077
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.134

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.077
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.026
Scholarly communication0.0120.010
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0270.037
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations40
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBirthSame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207