MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318911860 · doi:10.1016/j.jogc.2022.11.005

Guideline No. 432a: Cervical Ripening and Induction of Labour – General Information

2023· article· en· W4318911860 on OpenAlexaffvenue
debbie Robinson, Kim Campbell, Sebastian R. Hobson, W. Kim MacDonald, Diane Sawchuck, Brenda Wagner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsResearch Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGuidelineCINAHLGrading (engineering)Observational studyRandomized controlled trialMEDLINESystematic reviewCochrane LibraryHealth careGrey literatureFamily medicineSpecialtyNursingPsychological interventionSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

How this classification was reachedexpand

The three-model screen

all 5,600 screened works →

All three models called this out of scope.

stratum: aff_core · design weight: 5595.24 (the sample is stratified; any rate computed without the weight is wrong)
Claude Opus 4.8OUT
genre: policy
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Clinical practice guideline on cervical ripening and induction of labour; the object is patient care, not research practice.

GPT-5.6 (high)OUT
genre: policy
about Canada: no
confidence: high

This is a clinical guideline about cervical ripening and labour induction, not research practice.

Grok 4.5OUT
genre: policy
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Clinical practice guideline on labour induction, not research-policy analysis.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0130.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.009

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations18
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology CanadaSame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207