The Transmission of Values Specific to Midwifery and their Integration by Student Midwives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Québec midwives adhere to a set of values viewed as essential. These values set midwives apart from other obstetrics professionals and play an important role in the formation of their professional identity. This article explores whether these values are transmitted to student midwives. To achieve our research objectives, we presented 21 student midwives with scenarios where a client's behaviour corresponds only more or less to midwifery values (as defined by the regroupement Les sages-femmes du Québec). Student responses were analyzed according to their level of correspondence with these values. The results show that regardless of the scenario, first-year students are most likely to form negative attitudes about the behaviour submitted to their attention and, contrary to their more advanced sisters, they base interventions with a client less on the need to refrain from judgment. Starting with the second year, the students' evaluations of behaviour tend to be neutral. The difference observed between the first-year cohort and the others leads us to believe that the start of the mentoring stage is the pivotal moment of training.
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".