Resistance and Relearning: Women’s Experiences Choosing Midwifery and Home Birth in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using a critical feminist approach, and with attention to participants’ broad life experiences, this qualitative study explores seven women’s learning in their challenging, transformative decisions to give birth at home with midwives in Ontario, Canada. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with women who had recently planned midwife-attended home births to shed light on how they learned about these childbirth possibilities and gained the confidence to plan a home birth. Participants’ narratives revealed that to make these choices, they had to become active and informed decision-makers, and resist the dominant view of birth as inherently risky, and of women’s birth experiences as unimportant and incompatible with the birth of a healthy baby. Replacing myths and misconceptions about midwifery, and especially about home birth, with more current and evidence-based information was critical to participants’ resistance and relearning, as were their own life experiences and those of women they trusted.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".