MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160056102 · doi:10.3402/ijch.v70i2.17803

The Rankin Inlet Birthing Centre: community midwifery in the Inuit context

2011· article· en· W2160056102 on OpenAlexaffabout
Vasiliki Douglas

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Circumpolar Health · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsCollege of New CaledoniaUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)InletObstetricsNursingSociologyPsychologyMedicineGeographyOceanographyGeologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To trace the historical development of the Rankin Inlet Birthing Centre since its inception in 1993 in the context of plans to make it the nucleus of a system of community birthing centres throughout Nunavut. STUDY DESIGN: This is an analytical historical study using a combination of oral history interviews, government documents and existing literature. METHODS: Oral history interviews with current and former employees of the Birthing Centre, founding organizers and women who gave birth there were combined with a review of the literature using MEDLINE, Anthropology PLUS, CINAHL and Historical Abstracts, as well as a search of the records of the Nunavut Government and the debates of the Nunavut Legislature and its predecessor, the NWT Legislature. Results. The Rankin Inlet Birthing Centre has been successful, but only marginally so. The majority of births for residents of this region still occur in southern hospitals, either in Churchill or Winnipeg. Although the long-term plan for the Centre is to train and employ Inuit midwives, thus far only two maternity care workers are employed at the Centre. All the midwives are from southern Canada and rotate through the Centre and the community on fixed terms. The Centre has been very successful at gaining and retaining support at the political level, with a strong official commitment to it from the Nunavut Legislature, and active support from the medical communities in the Kivalliq and in Manitoba through the Northern Health Unit at the University of Manitoba. Community support within Rankin Inlet is less apparent and has been halting. Plans to extend the model of the Centre to other communities are long-standing, but have been slow to come to fruition. DISCUSSION: The Rankin Inlet Birthing Centre has remained an important, but peripheral, institution in Rankin Inlet. It is in many ways a southern institution located in the Arctic; for this reason, and due to the social networks present in Rankin Inlet itself, it has suffered from a lack of enthusiastic support from the community. However, the staff at the Birthing Centre are aware of its shortcomings and explicitly support more community-centred approaches in other communities. CONCLUSIONS: The staff and clients of the Rankin Inlet Birthing Centre have broadly recognized the challenges it faces. Future expansion is likely to adapt to local traditions and requirements, leading to new birthing centres that will be integrated into their communities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.381
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.091
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Circumpolar HealthSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207