Exploring the Competing Risk Rationalities Surrounding Surgical Birthing Interventions: The Risk Positions of Expectant Mothers and Issues Surrounding Informed Choice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contrary to the World Health Organization's (WHO) recommendation of 10-15%, Canada's caesarean section (C-section) rate is presently greater than 27%, making it the most common surgical procedure performed each year (CIHI 2015b).This thesis seeks to establish a link between the risk discourses present in popular sources of pregnancyrelated information and the alarming national C-section rate.This is achieved using a mixed methods approach.First, data from the Maternity Experiences Survey (MES) is used to assess the sociodemographic context of C-section in Canada.This is followed by a qualitative description analysis of the risk discourses present in several popular sources of pregnancy-related information.Notably, findings suggest that the type of care provider and the type of birth have an impact of women's satisfaction with the information they received leading up to labour and delivery.The implications of these findings within the broader context of the Canadian maternity care culture are explored.
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 | 0.023 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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".