Anarchists, Naturalists, Hippies, and Artists: Beliefs about Midwifery Care and Those Who Choose It
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although demand for midwifery services in Canada is increasing, research suggests that a low proportion of Canadians would consider midwifery care for their or their partner’s pregnancy. There is still a significant gap in knowledge about why Canadians prefer physician or obstetrician based care over midwifery care. In order to further understand these preferences, the current research employed a qualitative exploration of young adults’ commonly held beliefs about midwifery care and people who choose midwifery care. Discussions about midwifery care and people who choose midwives as their primary care provider during pregnancy and birth were elicited through seven focus groups consisting of 3-7 young adults each, for a total of 29 participants (20 women and 9 men). The discussions were audiotaped, transcribed, and analyzed using thematic analysis. Our analyses of the data suggested that participants seemed to believe that people who choose midwifery care value “the natural”, actively eschew the medical system, rebel against convention, value personal experience, and maintain alternative lifestyles. Midwifery care and midwife-assisted births were characterized as facilitating a positive prenatal and birth experience for the mother, but were also often characterized as risky for the pregnancy overall, and in particular for the baby, requiring a high degree of trust on the part of the mother. Midwifery care and midwife-assisted births were described as old-fashioned, and ultimately uncommon. Recommendations for marketing strategies, based on these findings, are suggested. 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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".