MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089258063 · doi:10.12968/bjom.2006.14.3.20577

What happens after a difficult birth? Postnatal debriefing services

2006· article· en· W2089258063 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Susan Ayers, Jennifer Claypool, Andrew L. Eagle

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Midwifery · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDebriefingMedicineQuarter (Canadian coin)Listing (finance)Telephone surveyPostnatal CareFamily medicineNursingMedical emergencyPregnancyMedical educationBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is increasing pressure to improve maternity services and provide postnatal services for women who have a difficult birth experience. However, there is little information about services currently offered. This survey aimed to establish the type and availability of postnatal services in the UK for women who have a difficult or traumatic birth. A telephone survey was carried out of a quarter of UK hospitals randomly chosen from the Department of Health listing. Seventy-one hospitals took part (76% of eligible hospitals). Results showed that 94% of hospitals provide postnatal services for women who have difficult births. Most of these (78%) are debriefing services that were implemented in response to need; only 5% were reportedly started on the basis of research evidence. Results are discussed in relation to the relative lack of awareness that such services exist and the controversy over the use of debriefing after trauma.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations32
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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