Caring for Women with Newborn Custodial Losses: A Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Custodial loss at birth, for child protection purposes, is an acutely marginalized birth experience. Literature review demonstrates a significant need for further research, especially in regard to maternal perspectives and needs. Although direct maternal voices are overwhelming absent in the current literature, critical findings include that: 1) neglected grief is persistent and detrimental; 2) blame and stigma focused on the individual obscures complex social adversity (often inextricable from trauma), and 3) social and systemic factors disadvantage marginalized women in gendered ways. Canadian midwives are in an important position to explore care possibilities in the context of custodial loss and to engage in research which prioritizes the participation of those directly affected. \ La perte de la garde de l’enfant à la naissance, pour des motifs de protection de l’enfance, constitue une expérience d’accouchement gravement marginalisée. La revue de la littérature démontre la grande nécessité de procéder à de plus amples recherches, particulièrement en ce qui a trait aux points de vue et aux besoins de ces mères. Bien que la littérature actuelle soit essentiellement exempte de comptes-rendus issus directement des mères, on compte ce qui suit parmi les constatations cruciales qui en sont tirées : 1) le chagrin négligé persiste et exerce des effets préjudiciables; 2) le blâme et la stigmatisation axés sur la personne masque une adversité sociale complexe (souvent inextricablement liée au traumatisme); de plus, des facteurs sociaux et systémiques désavantagent les femmes marginalisées de façon sexospécifique. Les sages- femmes canadiennes se trouvent dans une position importante leur permettant d’explorer les possibilités de soins, dans le contexte de la perte de la garde d’un enfant, et de prendre part aux efforts de recherche qui accordent la priorité à la participation des personnes directement affectées.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".