Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the relative benefits and risks of PREVENTION of postpartum hypertension, among women with an antenatal hypertensive disorder of pregnancy, by assessing: · Whether routine postpartum administration of oral antihypertensive therapy is better than postpartum administration of antihypertensive therapy only for manifest mild‐moderate postpartum hypertension. · If routine postpartum antihypertensive therapy is beneficial overall, to assess whether one antihypertensive offers any advantages over another for women with mild‐moderate postpartum hypertension. To assess the relative benefits and risks of TREATMENT of manifest postpartum hypertension (which has arisen de novo or represents a recurrence of antenatal hypertension), by assessing: · Whether oral antihypertensive therapy is better than placebo or no therapy for mild‐moderate hypertension. · If antihypertensive therapy is beneficial overall, to assess whether one antihypertensive offers any advantages over another for either mild‐moderate or severe hypertension.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".