Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The aim of this study is investigate how pregnant women feel about caesarean section and natural birth and whether a relation between maternal ages and preferred mode of delivery exists. Methods: The consecutive sampling consisted of 534 pregnant women presenting themselves for prenatal diagnosis at the Clinic of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the University Hospital Schleswig Holstein, Campus Lueck (Germany). The pregnant women marke their wishes in a questionnaire on birth expectations in a five point Likert scale in a standardized questionnaire. Socio- demographic data were collected separately. Besides the descriptive statistics, an inferential (t-test) statistics method was implemented to assess the age groups, using SPSS 15.0. The level of significance was 5 %. Results: Women favour a natural birth and place high importance on the criteria physiology, birth experience and personal support. Characteristics of the caesarean section viewed negatively include surgery and pain. Pregnant women of advanced age (≥ 35 years) tend to view caesarean section slightly more positive but there is insufficient evidence to support that their decisions diverge from younger women 's views. Conclusion: The rise in caesarean section rates cannot be attributed to the patient s' wishes. Although special risks were found in various studies for mothers of 35 years or older, they still prefer to give birth naturally. In terms of patient autonomy, obstetricians should respect women 's choice for vaginal delivery, and avoid medical intervention if clinically possible. doi:10.4021/jcgo3e
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 | 0.003 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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 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".