Curling rings and birthing wings: Bridging the gap in rural obstetrics
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
‘Push hard, hard, hard’! In the midst of the delivery room, the family medicine doctor urged the labouring mother. It was a stark contrast to just hours earlier when the same doctor had echoed those words while curling at the local club. The connection between these seemingly unrelated events began earlier that evening when, on my first clinical placement in rural Southwestern ON, the doctor invited me to join a curling session. I had just arrived the day before, and curling was evidently a community staple. Intrigued, I accepted the invitation. As we prepared a patient for induction, the doctor explained the local enthusiasm for curling. My response revealed my limited experience, having curled only once in gym class. Undeterred, the doctor encouraged me to join that evening, setting the stage for an unexpected blend of medical observations and community integration. ‘Hurry hard, hard, hard’! My preceptor shouted down the ice as I scooted with my broom awkwardly towards the button, fighting to keep my balance. After a long day in the clinic, this break from the hospital was exactly what I needed. Amidst the excitement of the curling game, the doctor asked if I wanted to be notified when the labouring mother was ready to push. Eager for the experience, I enthusiastically agreed. As a 2nd-year medical student, with limited hospital exposure, I was excited to witness my first birth. ‘Even if it is at 2 am?’ She clarified. ‘Absolutely’. In the backdrop of my medical school studies, I had explored the decline of family practice obstetrics in rural Ontario. Reasons such as fear of litigation and challenging call schedules had contributed to the emergence of ‘maternal care deserts’ across the province over the past 20 years.1 Ironically, before this placement, I had dismissed obstetrics as a potential career path due to similar concerns. I returned to the hospital that night at 11 pm, hardly past my bedtime and I observed the intensity of labour. The doctor and nurses guided the mother through contractions, and I played a supporting role, handing supplies and offering encouragement. The wave of emotions in the room once Mom gave the final push, and a gush of fluid arrived with a screaming babe, overcame me. I was in awe of Mom’s strength and the doctors calm and collected approach to the delivery. ‘Did you see that, Dad? It’s a boy’! The Doc exclaimed, as she quickly inspected the baby and placed him on Mom’s chest. The parents had not been informed of the sex earlier in the pregnancy, so they were just as surprised as I was to welcome their son into the world. ‘Welcome, Jack’, our patient exclaimed exhausted after the past 12 h of labour. ‘Would you like to cut the cord, Dad?’ The doctor offered, he shook his head vigorously, after which the physician offered this experience up to me, which I eagerly accepted. Once Mom and babe were settled, I returned home after a long day. I reflected about the day’s events, with a new appreciation for the family medicine generalist as an avenue for obstetrical care in rural communities.2 I went to bed that night with my previous preconceptions about rural obstetrical care obliterated, an excitement about rural obstetrical care that I am excited to bring into my future career as a rural family physician and a new appreciation of the challenges and joys of curling. Financial support and sponsorship: Nil. Conflicts of interest: There are no conflicts of interest.
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 | 0,009 | 0,021 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,017 | 0,012 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,016 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,008 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,011 | 0,001 |
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 ».