Bibliographic record
Abstract
Horta et al.1 elegantly demonstrated that maternal, but not paternal, birthweight and weight gain in early childhood may be directly associated with next-generation birthweight. However, the relative contributions of early and adult body weight (i.e. at the time of conception or during pregnancy) may have been overlooked. It is not clear whether the associations were still observed once adult maternal body weight was accounted for. Maternal weight is a major determinant of offspring’s birthweight. Pre-pregnancy body mass index and gestational weight gain are both associated with infant birthweight.2 While offspring’s adult body size is strongly determined by both parents’ size, maternal weight has greater influence than paternal weight on birthweight.3 Maternal constraint is a complex regulator of fetal growth and, for instance, uterine and pelvic canal size may themselves determine fetal weight gain.4–7 Actually, matching fetal growth and maternal size at the time of pregnancy helps the fetus to be delivered vaginally, irrespective of the paternal/fetal genotype.5 Thus, when the father is of large stature, such a matching is critical to prevent a mother of short stature giving birth to large babies not suited to her uterus size or pelvic dimensions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.039 | 0.033 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.016 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".