Obstetric Violence in Developing Health Systems: An Evolving Problem Requiring Novel Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the term obstetric violence has a variable definition given its immensely personal and internally compassionate nature; many accept it to mean: harm inflicted during or in relation to pregnancy, childbearing, and the post-partum period often on the part of a healthcare provider. Obstetric violence, an enigmatic and labyrinthine concern, predominantly and disproportionality affects those experiencing pregnancy in nations with developing healthcare frameworks. The specific comparison that this article will explore is Canada versus Brazil. Due to sociopolitical factors that are beyond the scope of this article, Canada is often seen as a strong representation of developed healthcare whereas Brazil is often placed within the context of developing or underserved as it pertains to healthcare access and development. This is further reinforced by statistical rankings which in 2020 placed Canada as the 15th most developed healthcare system and Brazil ranked at 70.
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 | 0.015 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.001 |
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.
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".