MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7095925495

Neonatal Post-Resuscitation

2006· article· en· W7095925495 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResuscitationNeonatal resuscitationIntervention (counseling)Intensive careHealth careHealth professionalsNeonatal death
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the transition from fetus to neonate some babies will need active intervention and resuscitation. Neonatal resuscitation and follow up care provided by knowledgeable and skilled health care professionals is critical to a healthy outcome for these babies. Early intervention and prevention of complications is the basic principle in neonatal resuscitation and stabilization. In Saskatchewan there are approximately 12,000 births each year and it is estimated 1300 babies might require intensive care. The ideal way to transport a potentially sick infant is in utero. This involves a consultation with a Perinatal/Neonatal Center to arrange for transfer of the mother. Unfortunately, not all neonatal problems can be recognized to allow transport before birth. The Neonatal Resuscitation Program (NRP) presented in the ”Textbook of Neonatal Resuscitation ” 4th edition, is recommended as the standard for neonatal resuscitation. NRP Instructors throughout Saskatchewan are available to provide this educational program to health care providers caring for newborns. The Post Resuscitation Care of the Sick Newborn (STABLE) and Acute Care of the At-Risk Newborn (ACoRN) education programs are offered to provide additional information on care of the ill newborn. For more information about these programs contact the Perinatal Education

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.176

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0530.017

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→