Óxido nitroso en el parto.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduccion: La utilizacion de oxido nitroso se considera una alternativa eficaz en analgesia del parto. Su administracion, al 50% junto con oxigeno, se realiza de manera habitual en paises como Canada, Inglaterra, Finlandia, Suecia y Australia, que describen la utilizacion de esta tecnica analgesica en el 40-60% de los partos. Metodo: se ha llevado a cabo una investigacion consistente en una revision bibliografica sistematica sobre la literatura cientifica existente. Se ha realizado una busqueda sistematica de libros y, tambien, se han consultado articulos en las principales bases de datos: Pubmed, Medline, y Scielo, seleccionando articulos cientificos procedentes de publicaciones academicas revisadas e informacion de guias actualizadas. Resultados: La tecnica de administracion del oxido nitroso intermitente es sencilla, debe ser explicada de manera adecuada a la gestante por un profesional. Conclusion: El oxido nitroso es una alternativa al dolor a tener en cuenta para ofrecer a la gestante, haciendola participe y con el fin de aumentar su bienestar fisico y emocional durante todo el proceso.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.005 |
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".