Le cheminement des couples pour l’élaboration du projet de naissance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: women are increasingly demanding their rights, especially in reproductive health. In obstetrics, they can choose to write a birth plan.Objectives: the purpose of this dissertation was to study the journey of women who decided to make a birth plan.Methods: this descriptive and interpretative qualitative study included eight interviews with women or couples, who had just had a child, for whom they wrote a birth plan for the first time.Results: we find in these women, a desire to take control of their childbirth, a need to understand the physiological mechanism of childbirth. For others, we find a history of gyneco-obstetrical violence, with the desire to experience a non-traumatic birth. However, the medical follow-up as well as the prenatal education did not always meet their needs, and the health professionals were sometimes unable to accompany them. However, on D-day, the plans were respected.Discussion: there are several ways to improve the realization of the birth plan. Health professionals must be made aware of this demand to better respond to the needs of couples. The ideal would be to move towards "one-to-one" and to perpetuate birth-centers and technical platforms. But to do this, the current working conditions for midwives must be improved.Conclusion: there are several stages in the couple’s journey: information about the birth plan, the decision, conception and then realization. As a health professional, it is important to provide couples with the best possible support.
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 | 0.025 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.002 |
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.
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".