MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2538017418

Science and Service: Doula Work and the Legitimacy of Alternative Knowledge Systems

2016· article· en· W2538017418 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Megan M. Henley

Bibliographic record

VenueUA Campus Repository (The University of Arizona) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInformation Systems Theories and Implementation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegitimacyWork (physics)Service (business)Knowledge managementBusinessComputer sciencePublic relationsPolitical scienceMarketingEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This dissertation explores the knowledge systems that doulas use to legitimate their work to the medical community, and to clients. "Doula" comes from a Greek word that means "a woman who serves." In contemporary English, doulas are women who provide other women with support during labor and childbirth. Although research shows that doula support can have positive physiological and psychological effects, doulas' lower social status in the birth fields constricts their reach to those who know about and can hire them privately. In the United States, obstetricians have authoritative knowledge over birth, and all others fall beneath them in the hierarchy of medicine. Doulas serve as a case for exploring the importance of certification and science, versus alternative forms of knowledge for legitimating their expertise within the field of childbirth. This research uses a mixed methods approach to explore the roles that authoritative versus alternative sources of knowledge play in doulas' attitudes and approaches to childbirth. Data come from the Maternity Support Survey, an original, cross-national survey of nurses, doulas, and childbirth educators in the United States and Canada. I also rely on content analysis of five large doula organizations' websites, and interviews with twenty-five doulas, and twenty-five mothers who hired or considered hiring a doula to support them during labor and delivery. This mixed methods research looks at how doulas can legitimate their role in order to better serve women.Results suggest that both authoritative knowledge systems (such as certification) and alternative knowledge systems (such as feminism) influence doulas' approach to legitimating their work. Scientific evidence serves as both an authoritative and alternative source of knowledge, depending on the context. This research has important implications for the future of doula support; while alternative knowledge systems allow doulas to empower women and challenge the dominance of medicalized birth, authoritative knowledge systems allow doulas greater access to the women who need them most. In order to reach a greater population of women, doulas need to find a balance between challenging authoritative medicine and working within it to best serve women.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.790
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUA Campus Repository (The University of Arizona)Same topicInformation Systems Theories and ImplementationFrench-language works237,207