7. Muslim migrants in Montreal and perinatal care. Challenging moralities and local norms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stemming from multisited research on Muslim migrants in Montreal and perinatal care, 1 this paper centres on the local and transnational socialities in regards to perinatal knowledge as well as how these socialities and knowledge-sharing practices become actors in the local clinical encounter.We address these two themes within a pluralistic setting, where health services (whether community or tertiary) seek to adjust to local demographic changes (31% of Montrealers are born outside of Canada (Statistics Canada, 2007)). 2 For more than a decade, Muslim countries have been among the leading home countries of Montreal's migrants, making Islam (mostly Sunnite) the second religion in Quebec, after Catholicism.Families of all backgrounds share perinatal knowledge that is passed on from one generation to the next (Cresson and Mebtoul, 2010).Yet, this knowledge changes over time and place (Hjelm et al., 2009;Grewal et al., 2008;Boyacioglu and Türkmen, 2008; Yount, 2007).How it is met within clinical encounters with Muslim migrants gives rise to a number of questions, particularly in regards to gender roles, family dynamics, and decision-making processes related to healthcare issues (Ny et al., 2007(Ny et al., , 2008;;Pels, 2000;Fortin and Le Gall, 2012; Fortin, 2013b).In this contribution, we discuss socialities in the context of migration, with special attention to the changing role of fathers and how these socialities are involved in the clinical encounter.We see that expert knowledge 1 The pluridisciplinary research team that led this study funded by the Canadian Research Health Institutes (2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012) was composed of S. Fortin, J. Le Gall, G. Bibeau (anthropologists); A. Payot, F. Audibert (clinicians); F. Carnevale and A. Gagnon (nurses); and many research assistants: M. Bélanger and S. Maynard (successively team coordinators); R. SiAllouch, M. Rietmann, C
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".