Deconstructing Dissonance: Ontario Midwifery Clients Speak about Their Experiences of Testing Group B Streptococcus–Positive
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Group B streptococcus (GBS) is a bacterium commonly found in the vaginal flora and is usually of no consequence to women. However, vertical transmission of GBS to the baby during pregnancy and/or birth can lead to GBS-associated disease, a leading cause of neonatal morbidity and mortality in Canada and throughout the world. Screening for GBS at 35–37 weeks’ gestation and administration of intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis for colonized women has become standard practice; however, there is little research surrounding clients’ experiences, knowledge, and perceptions of both the test and of testing positive for the bacteria. This phenomenological study used semi-structured interviews guided by open-ended questions to explore the experiences of six midwifery clients in southern Ontario who tested GBS-positive in 2009. Transcribed interviews were analyzed using grounded theory to identify key themes. The diagnosis sharply affected women’s experiences during pregnancy and labour and often led to dissonance for them regarding questions of risk, health, the concept of normal, the midwifery model, their birth plans, and the competence of their midwife. The themes are discussed in terms of their relevance to midwifery practice. This article has been peer reviewed.
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 | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".