Keeping birth at home: Community and service provider visions for perinatal wellness and continued Inuit childbirth in Nunavik
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PROBLEM: Childbirth on traditional territories is unattainable for many Indigenous peoples living in remote communities in Canada. BACKGROUND: In Nunavik, Inuit territory in northern Quebec, rapid population growth risks exceeding local midwifery capacity. This poses challenges to community-based childbirth in a region recognized for reclaiming Inuit midwifery and local birthing. AIM: To explore community views on protective factors of maternal and family perinatal wellness and continued local birthing. METHODS: In ten communities, Inuit families and perinatal service providers created a total of 54 fuzzy cognitive maps on protective factors for (1) birth in a good way in Nunavik, (2) maternal and family perinatal wellness, and (3) community-based birthing in Nunavik. We used fuzzy transitive closure to examine direct and indirect connections and collated individual factors into categories using inductive thematic analysis. FINDINGS: Well-equipped local medical facilities and services, community birthing centres run by Inuit midwives, and Inuit perinatal traditions had the strongest influence on experiencing birth in a good way in Nunavik. Inuit youth perspectives featured instrumental and emotional support for mothers and families, along with health and self-care in pregnancy as the most influential factors on maternal and family perinatal wellness. Prominent protective factors for community birth in Nunavik included maternal-infant health and wellness, local Inuit midwifery services, and well-resourced medical facilities. DISCUSSION: Fuzzy cognitive mapping was helpful in informing community visioning of local childbirth and maternal and family perinatal wellness in Nunavik. CONCLUSION: Inuit-led midwifery services are essential to continued local childbirth in the region.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".