MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171239813 · doi:10.12927/hcpol.2015.24384

Mix of Maternity Care Providers in Canada

2015· article· fr· W2171239813 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Harminder Guliani

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare policy · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultinomial logistic regressionMaternity careResidenceGovernment (linguistics)Prenatal careBusinessNursingHealth careMedicineEnvironmental healthEconomic growthDemographyPopulationEconomicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To identify the factors influencing women's choice of maternity care providers in Canada. METHOD: Using the Maternity Experience Survey and a multinomial logit model, this paper examined the influence of various socio-economic and demographic factors on the mix of maternity care providers, while controlling for maternal risk profiles. Additionally, provinces were interacted with maternal age to assess the extent to which regional variations in mix of maternity care providers is influenced by pregnant women's needs. RESULTS: Besides maternal risk factors, province of prenatal care and the place of residence were found to be statistically significant determinants of choice of maternity care providers. Analysis involving interaction terms indicated wide regional variations in the mix of providers by maternal age. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest a wide provincial variation in the mix of maternity care providers. New provincial government initiatives are needed to enhance the supply and capacity of care providers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare policySame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207