MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392255820 · doi:10.22374/cjmrp.v21i1.3

Pregnant Canadians and Public Health Communication During the Early Pandemic

2023· article· en· W4392255820 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sarah Rudrum

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Midwifery Research and Practice · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Canadian institutionsAcadia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPandemicPublic healthRisk communicationHealth communicationPolitical scienceCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)MedicineEnvironmental healthPsychologyPublic relationsNursingInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Pregnant Canadians have particular information needs during a public health crisis. Duringthe COVID-19 pandemic, participants relied on their primary care providers in the absence of clear publichealth messages that focused on the context of pregnancy and the needs of pregnant people.Methods: A qualitative study in which pregnant Canadians wrote journal entries about their careexperiences in response to prompts during the early COVID-19 pandemic.Findings: Participants were cared for by a range of primary care provider types. Those seeing midwiveshad the most positive experiences with seeking information related to how the pandemic would affect theirlives and pregnancies. However, it was also clear that the absence of provincial and federal messagingdirected towards pregnant people created the potential for inconsistency and harms. RESUME Contexte : Au Canada, les personnes enceintes ont besoin de renseignements bien particuliers durantune crise de santé publique. Pendant la pandémie de COVID-19, les personnes participantes se sont fiéesà leurs fournisseurs de soins primaires en l’absence de messages de santé publique clairs axés sur lagrossesse et les besoins des personnes enceintes.Méthodes : Une étude qualitative a été réalisée au cours de laquelle des personnes enceintescanadiennes ont écrit dans leur journal leurs expériences de soins en réponse à des invites au début de lapandémie de COVID-19.Constatations : Les personnes participantes ont été soignées par une diversité de types de fournisseursde soins primaires. Celles qui ont consulté des sages-femmes ont connu les expériences les plus positiveslorsqu’il s’agissait d’obtenir des renseignements sur l’incidence possible de la pandémie sur leur vie et leurgrossesse. Cependant, il était également évident que l’absence de messages des gouvernements fédéralet provinciaux destinés aux personnes enceintes a constitué une source possible d’incohérence et depréjudices.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.589

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0310.010
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.571
GPT teacher head0.550
Teacher spread0.021 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Midwifery Research and PracticeSame topicFood Security and Health in Diverse PopulationsFrench-language works237,207