Bibliographic record
Abstract
Midwives, owing to their philosophy and their approach, are inspired by the concept of empowerment during the entire perinatal period. The aim of this article is to demystify the concept of empowerment and then to analyse it in relation to midwifery, particularly during the postnatal period. In light of the analysis of the concept according to the literature, empowerment within the context of midwifery is defined as follows: starting with a relationship that is based on a partnership between the midwife, the woman and her family, empowerment is an intentional process of sharing knowledge and power, which contributes to a woman's will and ability to make choices that are in harmony with her values, while enabling her to confidently undertake the actions that ensue from her choices. The application of the concept of empowerment in the practice of midwifery emphasizes that this approach induces and incites active participation of the mother and the development of her own abilities. Furthermore, empowerment does not occur without contributions from each of the partners. A few questions are raised in regards to the application of the concept of empowerment in the framework of a midwifery practice that is expanding in the Canadian population.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".