Returning childbirth to Inuit communities in the Canadian Arctic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While Inuit living in Nunavut have been advocating for decades for the return of birthing to their own communities, over two-third of births continue to occur outside of the territory. We conducted a literature review to answer the question, why has birthplace choice not been given back to Inuit yet. Based on our review we identified a number of factors impacting birthplace choice, including the organisation of the Nunavut medical system that is focused on primary health care and that cannot easily accommodate the potential clinical risks Western health care associates with birthing, often in isolation from socio-cultural risks; staffing vacancies and turn over in Nunavut, which creates challenges in continuity of care and in maintaining trust; and trends in Canada towards the medicalisation of birthing, which resulted in the displacement of traditional midwifery, and lately in the professionalisation of midwifery with training centres mostly located outside of Nunavut. We recognise that providing more options to birth in the north is complex. While birthing in the north as an option is a given objective, operationalising this objective in a consistent manner is likely going to be a challenge for years to come.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".