Maternity Nurses and Midwives in a British Columbia Rural Community: Evolving Relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the dynamics and evolution of inter-professional relationships between registered midwives and nurses in a rural community where midwifery has become well established over twelve years. Interviews explored the responses of maternity nurses, a nurse manager, and a public health nurse to the integration of midwives in a rural hospital in south east British Columbia. Factors which helped to bring resolution to early concerns were discussed, along with evolving understandings of roles and responsibilities. Participants reflected on the impact of midwifery on job satisfaction and on the character of the maternity unit. Initial concerns following integration included competence and liability, the history of unregistered midwifery in the community, and the loss of job satisfaction for nurses who had a diminished role in the care of labouring women. Nursing shortages and workload issues created some appreciation of the extra help provided by midwives, but also caused some inter-professional tensions. Although close and functional professional relationships developed, significant grey areas remain in the definition of shared roles and responsibilities with 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 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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".