Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The first joint symposium “Bridging Midwifery Borders” sponsored by the American College of Nurse Midwives (ACNM) and the Canadian Association of Midwives (CAM) was held October 3-5, 2001. This was the first of its kind meeting sponsored by both organizations. This issue of the Journal of Midwifery &Women's Health contains a sampling of the content presented at that symposium. Both American and Canadian authors have contributed articles. Four themes emerged during the conference and are reflected in this issue: the history of midwifery practice, midwifery research, educational models, and updates of clinical topics. Historical presentations from each country guided the opening of the international meeting and provided the basis for how midwifery developed in each country. Dawley details the historical origins of American midwifery. Unlike American midwifery, the Canadian system of midwifery is grounded in the International Definition of midwifery1 and supported by a direct-entry educational model. Canadian presentations showcase essential elements of Canadian midwifery, which include a strong home birth component. Page describes the research done in England on “one-to-one midwifery,” which is one of the models Canadian midwives used in defining midwifery in Canada.2 It is intended that this model restore the “with woman” relationship in midwifery. Janssen, Lee, Ryan, and Saxell present an evaluation of the process and protocols evaluated during the introduction of planned home births as part of their research on home birth statistics in Canada.3 Articles highlighting research include a description of an ongoing midwifery clinical trial in the United States that will identify techniques that can effectively reduce genital tract trauma at birth by Albers. Kornelson, Dahinten, and Carty describe their survey results looking at the interprofessional relationship between registered nurses and regulated midwives in British Columbia, Canada. This survey was conducted shortly after midwives became regulated and publicly funded health providers in the British Columbia health care system. Education of midwives in both Canada and the United States gives us the opportunity to look at new options and educational endeavors in both countries. Farley and Camacho Carr provide the rationale for a graduate degree in midwifery as a new option in midwifery education within the United States. In the Canadian system, there are currently five education programs that grant terminal degrees in midwifery. Presenters at the 3-day symposium also addressed several clinical topics. This issue includes two of those presentations. In light of new diagnostic techniques and advances, obstetric triage is revisited. Angelini addresses the four most common non-obstetric surgical conditions in pregnancy and their clinical management. Scharbo DeHaan reviews the 2002 Guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on treatment of sexually transmitted diseases. It is hoped that this collection of manuscripts covering a selection of educational topics presented at the October symposium will impart the level of sharing and professional exchange that ensued in Toronto.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,031 | 0,059 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,019 | 0,019 |
| Communication savante | 0,014 | 0,020 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,040 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,013 | 0,020 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,026 | 0,004 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».