Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first joint symposium “Bridging Midwifery Borders” sponsored by the American College of Nurse Midwives (ACNM) and the Canadian Association of Midwives (CAM) was held October 3-5, 2001. This was the first of its kind meeting sponsored by both organizations. This issue of the Journal of Midwifery &Women's Health contains a sampling of the content presented at that symposium. Both American and Canadian authors have contributed articles. Four themes emerged during the conference and are reflected in this issue: the history of midwifery practice, midwifery research, educational models, and updates of clinical topics. Historical presentations from each country guided the opening of the international meeting and provided the basis for how midwifery developed in each country. Dawley details the historical origins of American midwifery. Unlike American midwifery, the Canadian system of midwifery is grounded in the International Definition of midwifery1 and supported by a direct-entry educational model. Canadian presentations showcase essential elements of Canadian midwifery, which include a strong home birth component. Page describes the research done in England on “one-to-one midwifery,” which is one of the models Canadian midwives used in defining midwifery in Canada.2 It is intended that this model restore the “with woman” relationship in midwifery. Janssen, Lee, Ryan, and Saxell present an evaluation of the process and protocols evaluated during the introduction of planned home births as part of their research on home birth statistics in Canada.3 Articles highlighting research include a description of an ongoing midwifery clinical trial in the United States that will identify techniques that can effectively reduce genital tract trauma at birth by Albers. Kornelson, Dahinten, and Carty describe their survey results looking at the interprofessional relationship between registered nurses and regulated midwives in British Columbia, Canada. This survey was conducted shortly after midwives became regulated and publicly funded health providers in the British Columbia health care system. Education of midwives in both Canada and the United States gives us the opportunity to look at new options and educational endeavors in both countries. Farley and Camacho Carr provide the rationale for a graduate degree in midwifery as a new option in midwifery education within the United States. In the Canadian system, there are currently five education programs that grant terminal degrees in midwifery. Presenters at the 3-day symposium also addressed several clinical topics. This issue includes two of those presentations. In light of new diagnostic techniques and advances, obstetric triage is revisited. Angelini addresses the four most common non-obstetric surgical conditions in pregnancy and their clinical management. Scharbo DeHaan reviews the 2002 Guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on treatment of sexually transmitted diseases. It is hoped that this collection of manuscripts covering a selection of educational topics presented at the October symposium will impart the level of sharing and professional exchange that ensued in Toronto.
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 | 0.031 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.040 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.004 |
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".