MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400622037 · doi:10.22374/cjmrp.v7i2.146

Who Do We Serve? Role Conflict in Ontario Midwifery

2024· article· en· W4400622037 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Julie Corey

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Midwifery Research and Practice · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealthcare innovation and challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObstetricsPolitical sciencePsychologySociologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The integration of midwifery into the Ontario health care system has posed challenges to the role of the midwife. The pressure to maintain hospital privileges and the fear of litigation can place midwives in opposition to their role of advocate and support for childbearning women. Additionally, collaborative maternity care models may also create conflicting demands on midwives. Midwives can experience these challenges as role conflict which can have a detrimental effect on midwifery care and lead to work stress and attrition in the profession. Open dialogue, further research, education, consumer involvement and improved interdisciplinary communication are among the strategies that could be used to better understand and address role conflict amongst midwives.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.831
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.324
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.162 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Midwifery Research and PracticeSame topicHealthcare innovation and challengesFrench-language works237,207