Alegal Midwives: Oral History Narratives of Ontario Pre-legislation Midwives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the oral histories of midwives who practiced in Ontario without legal status in the two decades prior to the enactment of midwifery legislation on December 31, 1993. The following questions are answered: Who were Ontario’s pre-legislation midwives? What inspired and motivated them to take up practice on the margins of official health care? Current scholarship on late twentieth century Ontario midwifery focuses on a social scientific analysis of midwifery’s transition from a grassroots movement to a regulated profession. Pre-legislation midwives are commonly portrayed as a homogenous group of white, educated, middle class women practicing a “pure” midwifery unmediated by medicine and the law. Analysis of the oral history narratives of twenty-one “alegal” Ontario midwives reveals more complex and nuanced understandings of midwives and why they practiced during this period. The midwives’ oral histories make an important contribution to the growing historiography on modern Canadian midwifery.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".