“There is nothing to protect us from dying”: Black women's perceived sense of safety accessing pregnancy and intrapartum care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pregnancy and childbirth have become a dangerous journey for Black women as harrowing stories of death and near-death experiences resonate within Black communities. While the causes of pregnancy-related morbidity and mortality are well documented, little is known about how Black Canadian women feel protected from undesirable maternal health outcomes when accessing and receiving pregnancy and intrapartum care. This critical qualitative inquiry sheds light on Black women's perceived sense of safety in accessing pregnancy and intrapartum care. Twenty-four in-depth interviews were conducted with Black women who were pregnant or had given birth. Five interconnected themes were generated through thematic analysis: (1) There is a lot of prejudice towards us, (2) We are treated as sick bodies, (3) There is a lot of stereotypes towards us, (4) Our care is lacking in quality, and (5) We feel unsafe in the healthcare system. These themes highlight the perils faced by Black women accessing pregnancy and intrapartum care. The right to safe motherhood and equitable care for Black women should be a national priority in Canada to avert a looming crisis.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".