Facilitating Birth for Women Who Have Experienced Genital Cutting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Female genital cutting (FGC) is a traditional practice in parts of Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. Due to increasing migration from these areas to Canada and elsewhere, the care of women who have undergone FGC has become both a national and a global concern. It is widely regarded as a public health and human rights issue affecting at least 140 million women worldwide. In Canada, pregnant women who experienced FGC may face more physical and emotional challenges than their nonpregnant counterparts. Their need to access optimal perinatal care is critical, as FGC, particularly that with more extensive cutting (infibulation), is widely considered to be an indirect cause of maternal/ newborn morbidity. The purposes of this article are (1) to provide a deeper insight into challenges confronting affected women seeking maternity care in Canada and their providers and (2) to recommend the appropriateness of the Canadian midwifery model in providing optimal care for women who have experienced FGC. The goal is to support Canadian health care providers in gaining a greater understanding of the historical, cultural, and physical realities of FGC so that they are able to provide maternity care that meets Canadian standards while being sensitive to cultural values and beliefs. 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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".