MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082966073 · doi:10.3402/ijch.v63i0.17909

The outcome of perinatal care in Inukjuak, Nunavik, Canada 1998–2002

2004· article· en· W2082966073 on OpenAlexaffabout
Susanne Houd, J. Qinuajuak, Brenda Epoo

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Circumpolar Health · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsNunavik Regional Board of Health and Social Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCaesarean sectionMedicinePregnancyBirth recordsBirth rateDemographyMedical recordObstetricsPediatricsBirth weightPopulationEnvironmental healthFertility

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: From the 1950s women in Nunavik were transferred to South Quebec to give birth. Since 1986 women have had the opportunity to give birth in Povungnituk, Nunavik, and the education of community midwives began. Inukjuak, a small community in Nunavik, was included in the project in 1998. There is no possibility for caesarean section or transfer during birth, in any of the places. Women can be transferred in pregnancy or post partum to the small hospital in Povungnituk or to a specialist obstetrical unit in Montreal. STUDY DESIGN: A 5-year retrospective survey of the perinatal care in Inukjuak. METHOD: Data were collected from 1. Birth registrations. 2. Antenatal records in Inukjuak. 3. Records and follow-up of medical evacuations to either Povungnituk or Montreal. RESULTS: Of the 182 women from Inukjuak who gave birth, 72.5% of the women gave birth in their own community. 4.5% women or/and newborn was evacuated for reasons related to birth. The rate of premature birth is 3.3% of all pregnant women from Inukjuak. The PMR is 0.5% of all babies born by women from Inukjuak and 0.7% of all babies born in Inukjuak. CONCLUSION: Three out of four women can stay in Inukjuak and give birth with a PMR of 0.7%

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.190
Threshold uncertainty score0.625

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.334 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations33
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Circumpolar HealthSame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207