MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2282088732 · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139010467.046

Out of hospital birth

2009· book-chapter· en· W2282088732 on OpenAlexaff
Tilman Humpl

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2009
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHome birthChild birthPediatricsFamily medicinePregnancyChildbirth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The term “out of hospital birth” was coined in the twentieth century. Before 1900 it was the exception rather than the rule to give birth at a hospital. At this time fewer than 5% of all births took place at a hospital, increasing to almost 50% in 1940, and 99% in the 1970s. Several studies have demonstrated that planned home birth attended by appropriately qualified caregivers is safe. However, for this to be true, there should be no significant difference in morbidity and mortality when compared to standard hospital delivery. A healthy woman without contraindications (see below) has a low risk, both for herself and for the newborn infant. Midwives and/or obstetricians should discuss the advantages and possible risks of home birth with the expecting parents. Outcome: the perinatal mortality of “intended home birth” in the USA, Canada, UK and Australia (studies from 1969 to 1996) ranges between 0.9/1000 and 5.1/1000. Important factors influencing the mortality rate of the newborn Underestimation of the risks associated with post-term birth Twin pregnancy Breech presentation Lack of response to fetal distress ! It is important to differentiate a “ planned home birth ” (with the presence of a skilled attendant, e.g., midwife) from an “ unplanned home birth ,” which can rapidly turn into an emergency situation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.161

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0480.010

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.223 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooks→Same topicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions→French-language works237,207→