Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The caring dilemma, first described by Reverby in 1987, denotes the tension caused by being obliged to provide care without the right to determine how that care is to be provided. Such a dilemma is salient in the practice of midwifery based on a continuity of care model that has recently emerged or been implemented in various jurisdictions. Briefly, this model involves the provision of care by a single midwife or pair of midwives to a woman throughout her pregnancy, birth and post-natal period. Continuity of care necessitates that midwives be on call for significant lengths of time to ensure attendance at the woman's birth. It is the on-call nature of this form of midwifery work that most significantly poses a caring dilemma for midwives. In this paper, we trace both the structural and experiential aspects of the caring dilemma through an examination of midwifery in the Canadian province of Ontario. Our analysis reveals that despite being a salient feature of midwifery practice, some work structures can be created to mediate the caring dilemma experienced by midwives. Le dilemme de la prise en charge, que Reverby a évoqué la première fois en 1987, dénote la tension que cause le fait d’être tenu d'offrir une prise en charge sans avoir le droit d’établir de quelle manière l'offrir. L'exemple des sages-femmes, dont la pratique repose sur un type de soin continu qui est récemment apparu ou qu'on vient de mettre sur pied dans diverses administrations, illustre très clairement ce dilemme. Pour résumer, ce modèle veut qu'une femme enceinte soit prise en charge pendant sa grossesse, à son accouchement et durant sa période postnatale par une ou deux sages-femmes. La continuité de la prise en charge oblige les sages-femmes à être sur appel durant des périodes prolongées pour que la femme qui accouche bénéficie de leur présence. Pour les sages-femmes, c'est la nature même de leur travail effectué sur appel qui engendre, de façon cruciale, le dilemme de la prise en charge. Dans cet article, nous abordons les aspects structurels et expérimentaux que représente le dilemme de la prise en charge par le biais d'une étude sur la pratique du métier de sage-femme dans la province canadienne de l'Ontario. Notre analyse révèle que, si le dilemme de la prise en charge est inhérent à la profession de sage-femme, il n'empêche que des structures professionnelles peuvent être mises en place pour en atténuer les aspects négatifs. Keywords: midwiferycare workon callprofessional interestsclient interestsKeywords: la profession de sage-femmesoigner le travaille professionel s'intéressele client s'intéresse We would like to acknowledge the financial contributions to this research project from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada through a Standard Research Grant and the National Health Research and Development Program of Health Canada through a Postdoctoral Fellowship to Dr Bourgeault. We would also like to thank Cecilia Benoit and the three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. Notes 1. Midwives were not allowed to catch babies in hospitals as they had no official status there until 1994. 2. Unlike obstetrical services which were provided for through the provincial healthcare system, midwifery services were paid for directly by clients and not reimbursed by the province.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it