MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7099346599

WOMEN'S HEALTH Assessment of Pain After Elective Abortion Relating to the Use of Misoprostol for Dilatation

2015· article· en· W7099346599 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSecond Language Acquisition and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMisoprostolAbortionCervixVisual analogue scaleLaminariaVacuum aspirationProstaglandin analogue
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec, Quebec QC Objective: Our objective was to compare the use of misoprostol to that of laminaria tents for dilatation of the cervix before a surgical elective abortion (EAB) during the first trimester, with regard to the pain caused (1) during insertion, for both methods, (2) immediately before the EAB, and (3) one hour after the procedure. Methods: One hundred two women were recruited at Clinique de planification des naissances du Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec, CHUL pavilion, between March 1, 2006 and March 1, 2007, for a tracking study. Fifty-three women were given 400 µg of misoprostol intravaginally, three to four hours before the EAB, and a laminaria tent was inserted in 49 women, 16 to 24 hours before the EAB. A visual analog scale was used to determine the pain score.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.512
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.216
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSecond Language Acquisition and LearningFrench-language works237,207