How do midwives facilitate women to give birth during physiological second stage of labour? A protocol for a systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Midwives' practices during the second stage of labour vary nationally and internationally. We aim to retrieve evidence that supports high-quality intrapartum care by conducting a systematic review of the literature. METHODS: Electronic bibliographic databases including PubMed, EMBASE.com , Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, Maternity and Infant Care Database (through MIDIRS), and The Cochrane Library will be searched to identify studies that meet the inclusion criteria. No language or publication date constraints will be applied. Articles that pass the two-stage screening process will then be assessed for risk of bias and have their reference lists hand searched. DISCUSSION: A midwife's practice can be influenced by education and cultural practices but ultimately it should be informed by up-to-date research evidence. By analysing and synthesising the results of the studies, this systematic review will provide valuable insight into high-quality evidence-based midwifery care, which can inform practice, education and future research. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018088300.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 it