MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400615405 · doi:10.22374/cjmrp.v11i1.105

The Canadian Birth Place Study: Development, Validation and Administration of a Questionnaire for Multi-disciplinary Maternity Care Providers

2024· article· en· W4400615405 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Laura Schummers, Saraswathi Vedam, Nichole Fairbrother, Michael Klein, Janusz Kaczorowski

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Midwifery Research and Practice · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaternity careDisciplineAdministration (probate law)MedicinePsychologyNursingObstetricsHealth carePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The debate between professional groups in Canada about the advisability of planned home birth continues. The Canadian Birth Place Study examines Canadian registered midwives', family physicians', and obstetricians' experiences with and attitudes towards planned home birth, as well as factors associated with in those attitudes. Evidence based strategies were applied to the development, validity testing, and implementation of a cross-sectional questionnaire to a multi-disciplinary sample of maternity care providers.The survey questions and attitude scale items were adapted from a previously validated questionnaire and reviewed by two discipline-specific expert panels. Experts provided qualitative comments and rated each socio-demographic and attitude item on three 4-point Likert-type scales to evaluate importance, clarity, and relevance. Aggregated scores (content validity indices) demonstrated strong content validity of items. The questionnaire construction and administration plan incorporated best practices for increasing response rates among healthcare providers, as well as participation from multiple perspectives on a controversial topic across study populations.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.786
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.229
GPT teacher head0.521
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Midwifery Research and PracticeSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207