MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2770520971 · doi:10.1177/2333393617740463

Health Care Students’ Attitudes About Alcohol Consumption During Pregnancy: Responses to Narrative Vignettes

2017· article· en· W2770520971 on OpenAlexaff
Kelly D. Coons, Shelley L. Watson, Nicole Yantzi, Nancy Lightfoot, Sylvie Larocque

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Qualitative Nursing Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Substance Exposure Effects
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeAlcohol consumptionPregnancyPsychologyConsumption (sociology)AlcoholObstetricsMedicineDevelopmental psychologySociologyArtLiteratureChemistrySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores medical, midwifery, and nurse practitioner students' attitudes about women who may consume alcohol throughout their pregnancies. Twenty-one health care students responded to a scenario-based vignette addressing alcohol consumption during pregnancy, as well as a semistructured interview, which were analyzed using Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis approach. Two primary themes related to students' attitudes concerning alcohol consumption during pregnancy were identified: (a) divergent recommendations for different women, based on perceptions of their level of education, culture/ethnicity, and ability to stop drinking; and (b) understanding the social determinants of health, including the normalization of women's alcohol consumption and potential partner violence. Health care professionals in training need further education about the risks of alcohol consumption during pregnancy and fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD). In addition, health care students need training in how to engage in reflective practice to identify their own stereotypical beliefs and attitudes and how these attitudes may affect their practice.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.158
GPT teacher head0.579
Teacher spread0.421 · 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

Citations16
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Qualitative Nursing ResearchSame topicPrenatal Substance Exposure EffectsFrench-language works237,207