MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Impact of Occupational Shift Work and Working Hours During Pregnancy on Health Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2020· review· en· W3080261053 on OpenAlex
Chao Cai, Ben Vandermeer, Rshmi Khurana, Kara Nerenberg, Robin Featherstone, Meghan Sebastianski, Margie H. Davenport

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetric Anesthesia Digest · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and Work-Related Fatigue
Canadian institutionsWomen and Children’s Health Research InstituteUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWorkforcePregnancyShift workMeta-analysisWorking hoursObstetricsWork (physics)Work hoursPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

( Am J Obstet Gynecol . 2019;221:563–576) Women make up a significant proportion of the workforce, and most work during their pregnancies. While studies have found an association between adverse pregnancy outcomes and various working hours, such as shift work or working longer than the standard 40-hour work week, the results have been conflicting. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of shift work and long working hours during pregnancy on maternal and fetal outcomes, and to determine if there is a relationship between the length of working hours and these outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.263
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.274 · 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