MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4393229398 · doi:10.1016/j.jogc.2023.102325

The Future of Forceps Delivery in Canada

2024· letter· en· W4393229398 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Melissa G. Walker, Kristin Harris, Andrea N. Simpson, H Flores-Mendoza, Michèle Farrugia, Sebastian R. Hobson, John‏ Kingdom

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada · 2024
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedical History and Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForcepsSecrecyNorwegianIntervention (counseling)Forceps deliveryMedicineLawSurgeryVaginal deliveryPregnancyPolitical scienceNursingPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The history of the emergence of forceps as an effective delivery intervention was cloaked in secrecy for over 100 years by the Chamberlen family, until 5 pairs of the instruments were discovered under the floorboards of Woodham Mortimer Hall in England in 1813. For several prior generations of their family’s practice, these secretive instruments were used in an attempt to save one or both lives. Fast forward through the invention of chloroform analgesia by Sir James Young Simpson in Edinburgh in the 1870s, via the refinement of forceps to include rotational delivery by the Norwegian Christian Kielland in 1915, the establishment of modern sterility techniques in the 1950s, and the advent of safe epidural analgesia in the 1970s, one might expect the use of these instruments to be well-defined in 2024.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.799

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0130.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.002

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.172 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada→Same topicMedical History and Innovations→French-language works237,207→