Prenatal Evacuation: Addressing the Birth Customs and Perinatal Care Needs of Indigenous Women in Northern Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Expectant Indigenous women in northern and remote communities across Canada are often subject to forced prenatal evacuation to give birth in urban health centers. The historical background of Health Canada’s prenatal evacuation policy is lined with elements of colonial practices as traditional birth practices and customs diminished under its implementation. Using the medicine wheel as a framework to review the physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual health impacts of prenatal evacuation on childbearing Indigenous women, it is evident they suffer from adverse birth outcomes, mental health issues, emotional distress, and cultural degeneration in part due to Health Canada’s prenatal evacuation policy. Federal reports, including the Mental Health Strategy of Canada, 2012 from the Mental Health Commission of Canada, and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC), 2015’s Calls to Action neglect to address health issues experienced by Indigenous childbearing women, leaving healthcare providers ill-equipped to address concerns specific to this population. By expanding on the Calls to Action from the TRC with current research, the healthcare provider’s role in providing culturally safe care to Northern childbearing women is in advocating for change within the Health Canada policy to allow for culturally safe care through the integration of education, social support systems, and Indigenous advanced practice healthcare professionals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".