An Evaluation of Process and Protocols for Planned Home Birth Attended by Regulated Midwives in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Midwifery emerged as a self-regulated profession in British Columbia in the context of a 2-year demonstration project beginning in 1998. The project evaluated accountability among midwives, defined as the provision of safe and appropriate care and maintenance of standards of communication set by the College of Midwives of British Columbia. Adherence to protocols was measured by using documentation designed specifically for the Home Birth Demonstration Project. Hospital and transport records for selected clients were reviewed by an expert committee. Outcomes among Home Birth Demonstration Project clients were compared with outcomes among women eligible for home birth but planning to deliver in hospital. Adherence to clinical and communication protocols was 96% or higher. Planned home birth was not associated with an increase in risk but prevalence of adverse outcomes was too low to be studied with precision. Recommendations of an expert review committee have been implemented or are under review. Midwives have demonstrated a high degree of compliance with reporting requirements and protocols. Comparisons of birth outcomes of planned home versus hospital births, while supporting home birth as a choice for women, were limited in scope and require ongoing study. Integration of home birth has been a dynamic process with guidelines and policy continuing to evolve.
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 | 0.130 | 0.182 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".