Understanding the social organisation of maternity care systems: midwifery as a touchstone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Theories of professions and healthcare organisation have difficulty in explaining variation in the organisation of maternity services across developed welfare states. Four countries - the United Kingdom, Finland, the Netherlands and Canada - serve as our case examples. While sharing several features, including political and economic systems, publicly-funded universal healthcare and favourable health outcomes, these countries nevertheless have distinct maternity care systems. We use the profession of midwifery, found in all four countries, as a 'touchstone' for exploring the sources of this diversity. Our analysis focuses on three key dimensions: (1) welfare state approaches to legalising midwifery and negotiating the role of the midwife in the division of labour; (2) professional boundaries in the maternity care domain; and (3) consumer mobilisation in support of midwifery and around maternity issues.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".