RELACIÓN DE FACTORES BIOSOCIOCULTURALES Y ASISTENCIA AL CONTROL PRENATAL EN GESTANTES. EL PORVENIR. 2014.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This present descriptive investigation of type realized in the Mother Hospital Santa Isabel. El Porvenir, during the months October - December, 2014, has as purpose of identifying the relationship of the biosocioculturals factors and the assistance of the pregnants to his prenatal controls (CPN). The sample was constituted by 90 pregnants. For the compilation of information used two instruments: Level of knowledge about the importance of the prenatal checks and the perception of the Quality of care. The dates were presented in simple tables and of double entry with numerical and percentage frequencies. For the statistical analysis of relationship between the variables, was used the Square Chi Test (x2). The findings show that 74.4% of pregnants are young adults; 42.2%, primiparous; 46.7% of pregnants have an average understanding of the importance of CPN, 54.4% receive good quality care. The 57.8% have adequate CPN; and 42.2%, inadequate. In the first quarter, 58.9% of pregnants had CPN inadequate, in the second quarter 65.6% had CPN appropriate, in the third quarter 96.7% had adequate CPN. Wasn’t found statistically significant relationship between biosocioculturals factors and assistance the CPN.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".