Postmodern negotiations with medical technology: The role of midwifery clients in the new midwifery in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1994, after more than a century of uncertain legal status, the Province of Ontario legalized midwifery and incorporated midwives into the formal health care system. Midwifery is now accessible and publicly funded for all women experiencing "normal" uncomplicated pregnancy and birth. Yet midwifery's move from the margins into the mainstream health care system has brought many new challenges. Midwives must now contend with an expanded scope of practice; they use more medical technology both to fulfill their professional obligations and to respond to the choices of women. This and an increased accessibility to a wider clientele seem to work against midwifery as a critical, low-tech alternative to "technocratic birth." In this article, through re-telling and analyzing women's narratives of pregnancy and birth, I explore the role of midwifery clients in re-shaping midwifery's relationship to medical technology. Steering away from essentialist explanations that hold that women are either inherently opposed to technology by virtue of their closeness to nature or wholly oppressed by technology and the systems within which it is imbedded, my analysis focuses on women's agency (on what women do rather than on what is done to them). My study suggests that women act pragmatically both with regard to biomedical technology and to midwifery. I argue that women's negotiations with medical technology have been instrumental in re-shaping midwifery as a postmodern phenomenon.
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 | 0.011 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.075 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".