MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080163763 · doi:10.12968/bjom.2003.11.6.11402

Who's choosing caesarean section?

2003· article· en· W2080163763 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Carol Kingdon, Tina Lavender, Gillian ML Gyte, Ruth Cattrell, Vicky Singleton, James Nielson

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Midwifery · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCaesarean sectionLegitimacySection (typography)Maternity careVaginal birthObstetricsMedicinePolitical scienceSociologyHealth careLawPregnancyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In November 2002 the University of Toronto hosted a conference entitled, Choosing delivery by caesarean: Has it's time come?. The Birthing Circle, a Canadian consumer advocacy group, protested outside the conference venue highlighting how contentious issues surrounding caesarean section (CS) and informed choice have now become. So what are the risks of planned CS compared with planned vaginal birth (VB) and what is the legitimacy of a woman's right to choose the way she gives birth in modern maternity care systems?

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.111

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of MidwiferySame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207