MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400622084 · doi:10.22374/cjmrp.v10i1.114

Birth at Home – At Home With Birth

2024· article· en· W4400622084 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Susan James

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Midwifery Research and Practice · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHome birthPregnancyChildbirthBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Canada, homebirth and midwifery seem to be inseparable. Prior to regulation, women wanting homebirths sought midwives and women wanting midwifery care often gave birth at home. Choice of birthplace, including the option of homebirth became a central tenet of regulated midwifery across the country. In this paper, the experience of homebirth is explored. Women and midwives from four provinces, both before and after midwifery regulation, spoke of their experiences of homebirth. Using hermeneutic phenomenological analysis, themes related to experiences of time, space, relationships and embodiment were identified. While some of the women's stories include comparisons of their births at homeandhospital,theobjectiveistouncoverwhatitisliketogivebirthathome notwhatisbetterorsafer or more challenging than other birthplace choices.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.611
Threshold uncertainty score0.751

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.288 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Midwifery Research and PracticeSame topicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin PregnancyFrench-language works237,207