MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4232211298 · doi:10.1016/s1701-2163(15)30446-1

Placenta Bowl

2014· article· en· W4232211298 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Roger A. Pierson, Ed Hughes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPacific and Southeast Asian Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClanGenealogyAncestorHistoryArchaeologyAnthropologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This beautifully carved object is a placenta bowl, or “ipu whenua,” carved circa 1900 by an unknown artist from the Rotorua region of New Zealand. It was created from a native Matai hardwood and inset with abalone shell. The bowl is intricately carved with overlapping animals and ancestral figures termed Tiki. The Tiki represent strength, communication and fertility. These carvings represent legends passed through generations of Maori people at least since New Zealand was discovered by Polynesian people over 2000 years ago and likely long into the distant past. The very close relationship that the Maori have with their land is clear: the word “whenua” refers to both the placenta and the land in Maori culture. After delivery, the placenta is placed into the bowl, taken to a site important to the family, often ancestral land, and ceremonially buried. This act creates and represents a deep and abiding relationship and responsibility with and toward the landscape, and reinforces ancestral ties and responsibilities to the child’s “iwi” or clan. The ritual has its origins in the proverb “He taonga no te whenua, me hoki ano ki te whenua,” which means, “what is given by the land should return to the land.” The practice ebbed in the past century, but appears to be enjoying a renaissance as the Maori embrace their cultural heritage. It gives us pause to reflect on what we do with the placenta in modern North American culture. This image is available for use under the following licence: Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales Licence Credit: Science Museum London. http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/online_science/history_of_science/objects/smxg-103093#sthash.JhiJEBaU.dpuf

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.206

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0620.015

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology CanadaSame topicPacific and Southeast Asian StudiesFrench-language works237,207