Meeting the Needs of Uninsured Women: Informed Choice, Choice of Birthplace and the Work of Midwives in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper focuses on the work of a small group of Ontario midwives who provide care to women without health insurance. Specifically, we explore how midwives support uninsured clients as they navigate the decision over where to birth their babies. Informed choice and choice of birthplace are both core and fundamental tenants of the model of midwifery care in the province. For the small but growing number of women in midwifery care in Ontario who do not have health care coverage, the decision about where to deliver their baby is complicated by the need to consider the significant hospital bed fees which are associated with hospital birth. Our research explores how midwives navigate the complex issues which arise for women and their care providers when economic considerations enter into the decision making process with regards to birth place options. Based on interviews conducted with midwives who care for uninsured women in Ontario, the paper focuses on the provision of care in this unique context. Issues explored include; the provision of informed choice, inter- professional work, pushing boundaries and the advocacy work of midwives.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".