Recording Data Labour With Documentation Midwifery Based On Word Electric Browser (WEB)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Midwifery documentation is a proof of recording and reporting possessed by midwives in carrying out records in documenting care provided. MATERIAL & METHODS: The research method used was the comparative study with the comparative descriptive design. The total subjects of 30 mothers in labor were chosen using the purposive sampling technique. The subjects were divided into two groups: 15 of the mothers used the conventional midwifery documentation and 15 of them used the WEB-based. The data were analyzed using the univariate analysis in order to look at the median value, and the bivariate analysis with Mann-Whitney test. RESULTS: The study results indicated the the highest frequency was found in the WEB-based partograph, namely he filling speed was 26 (86.7%), the highest frequency of partograph filling truth was that of the WEB-based partograph = 25 (83.3%), while the highest Relevance of the data frequency was found in the WEB-based partograph with the data Relevance = 27 (90%). The result of the statistical test had the p value of 0.000, 0.000, and 0.000 (< α = 0.05) meaning there was a difference of the WEB-based midwifery documentation compared to the conventional midwifery documentation. CONCLUSION: Thus it can be concluded that web-based midwifery documentation is more effective than conventional midwifery documentation. There are differences in the aspects of ease, speed, security and relevance of data to recording labor history data so that it needs to be applied in documenting midwifery care.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".