Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objective: During childbirth some practices are common and widely accepted though they have no scientific basis. Despite of being implemented some centuries ago, they last in time up to the present day, as for example episiotomy. Currently it is a controlled use intervention in some countries, especially in northern Europe, and a liberal (and almost unquestionable) use intervention in other countries: It is so common that, there is not even accounting for this procedure as a quality care indicator. In the present time, there is a conflict that involves the advocated minimally invasive care versus defensive practices… Episiotomy perfectly illustrates this dichotomy. To synthesize the current knowledge about intrapartum perineal care, regarding the origin and introduction of episiotomy in the midwives practice over time, in order to comprehend the evolution of the concept and methods of perineal preservation.Methods: A literature search was conducted in the electronic databases CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MedicLatina, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science, using descriptors MeSH and natural language. The results were synthesized and evidenced throughout this review.Results: A total of 27 articles were identified, which fully comply with the inclusion criteria. The most representative categories of papers are literature reviews (37%) and nonempirical articles (26%).Conclusions: Although scarce, the existing literature on this subject is very meticulous. One third of the articles are from midwives/nurse-midwives authorship which reveals special interest and concern of this professional class for this subject, that admittedly belongs to its field of expertise whether theoretical or practical. Major milestones were identified in the history of episiotomy which led to significant changes in midwifery intrapartum care patterns, with supremacy of the biomedical model.
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 | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".