Humanization of birth, women’s empowerment, and midwives’ actions and knowledge: experiences from Quebec and Chile
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Whether in pre-pregnancy, pregnancy, birth and/or the postnatal and neonatal periods, midwives’ practices are underpinned by humanism. However, in this era of postmodernity, there is an ever-growing need for rehumanization. This article adopts an auto-ethnographic approach in order to undertake a reflective analysis on the humanization of birth based on the practice of midwifery in two different contexts, namely Quebec (Canada) and Chile. In light of the evolution of the profession in these two countries, and the influence of health policies and social movements, there are factors such as the systematic use of technology and the hypermedicalization of reproductive processes which are maintaining women’s ignorance and keeping them from being able to participate in their maternity process. Women’s autonomy and empowerment become a key element for their participation in decisions regarding their maternity, assistance methods, or type of care. Concurrently, midwives’ autonomy is a prerequisite for fully exercising their role in supporting and assisting women in this re-appropriation of their power by means of a comprehensive approach that takes into account psychological and social aspects as well as biomedical ones.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".