The Chilcapamba–McGill Partnership: Exploring Access to Maternal and Newborn Care in Indigenous Communities of Ecuador
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Based on a participatory research (PR) partnership between Family Medicine at McGill University, Canada and the Andean community of Chilcapamba, Ecuador, a medical student study focused on maternal and newborn health. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the access to maternal and newborn care and the occurrence of intrafamilial violence in women with children 5 years of age or less in three indigenous communities of Ecuador. METHODS: A semistructured survey explored the perinatal and intrapartum care as well as intrafamilial violence. RESULTS: All women (N = 30) received prenatal care, 29 received postnatal care from a physician and 77% gave birth at the hospital. Eighty percent of women experienced intrafamilial violence; 73% reported psychological and 53% physical violence. CONCLUSIONS: There is good access to maternal and newborn health care, although the reported level of violence is high. Results were shared with the community and will be used in a local community health worker (CHW) training program. Our project highlights the importance of PR to investigate sensitive health challenges.
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 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 | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".