CORE LINK: “COLLABORATIVE OBSTETRICAL RESOURCE” PROPOSAL FOR LOW RISK OBSTETRICAL SHARED CARE CLINICS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a growing number of women and their families seek low risk obstetrical care, the number of maternity care providers falls. For family physicians, this is due in large measure to an unsustainable model of practice that includes constraints on lifestyle, prohibitive malpractice insurance and unsatisfactory remuneration. Ontario, British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec and Alberta have regulations in place for midwifery to address this growing problem. However, due to the limited scope of practice for midwives, the small number of practitioners, and the profession's attrition rate in general, there continues to be an enormous gap between the demand for access and the supply of low risk obstetrical care providers and services.i It is proposed that CORe LINK, Collaborative Obstetrical Resource Link, will develop shared-care clinics across the country, called Maternity CORe sites. These clinics will work within an interdisciplinary model developed to harness the unique skills and expertise of all community based, primary care professionals who work with the low risk obstetrical population, while addressing the barriers and challenges that these practitioners face in doing their work. CORe LINK is currently seeking approval in Ontario to pilot this project. A proposal for the CORe LINK project was submitted in November 2003 to the Primary Health Care Transition Fund.ii CORe LINK approval is pending to begin a fully integrated model of service delivery. As an interim approach, a two-phase process has been proposed that does not interfere with existing models of care. CORe LINK will utilize common clinical and evaluation tools to ensure that there will be a multi-centred approach to data collection and analysis across all Maternity CORe sites. This article will discuss how the CORe LINK project can both entice new practitioners to practice family centred obstetrics and conserve and protect established professionals from leaving through the development of an interdisciplinary approach to practice, funded through an Alternative Payment Plan within a shared liability model.
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 | 0.022 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.029 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.010 |
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".