MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307891228 · doi:10.1055/s-0042-1756907

Lachgas im Kreißsaal: Erfahrungen aus einem großen Nordamerikanischen Zentrum Laughing gas in labour & delivery: experience from a big North American center

2022· article· de· W4307891228 on OpenAlex

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

VenueGeburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2022
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEconomic and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Nitrous oxide (NO), an inhaled anesthetic gas commonly known as laughing gas, is an inexpensive and effective form of pain relief in labour. Benefits include its rapid onset of action and quick elimination through the maternal respiratory system, lack of effect on uterine contractility and possible use in all stages of labour. However, there are many misconceptions regarding its use, e.g. that it can prolong labour and is unsafe for patients. Therefore, NO is infrequently offered or used for labour analgesia.

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), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.848
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.256 · 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