The Critical Social Voice of Midwifery: Midwives in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many researchers have called community midwifery of the 1970s and 1980s a social movement. At the heart of the many goals of that movement was the desire to bring about significant social change regarding the medical and social contexts of birth. This article is an initial exploration into the critical social voice of midwifery and its current expression in Ontario, through interviewing midwives about their thoughts on the connections between midwifery, social activism and social change. The regulation and funding of midwifery in Ontario has created a new structural environment for midwifery practice and it is the phase of socio-cultural change following legislative change that is the focus of this paper. Speaking with midwives about midwifery practice and social change will help make visible the oppositional, critical work that midwives continue to do. This paper focuses on four themes identified as particular sites of the social change work of midwives in Ontario.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.064 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".