Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les revendications des groupes citoyens sont à l’origine du développement des services de sage-femme au Québec. Dès l’ouverture des premières maisons de naissance en 1994, les comités de parents participent à l’organisation des services de sage-femme. Près de trente ans après la mise en place des premiers services de sage-femme, cette recherche explore les perceptions de parents, de sages-femmes et d’aides-natales sur la participation des comités de parents dans l’organisation des services de sage-femme. Quatre fonctions principales des comités de parents sont mises en lumière : (1) l’organisation des activités communautaires (2) la promotion de l’approche des sages-femmes (3) l’évaluation et l’organisation des services de sage-femme (4) les représentations pour la défense des droits et des intérêts des femmes enceintes. Cette recherche met en évidence la diversité des fonctions jouées par les comités de parents, lesquels vont au-delà du rôle de l’organisation des activités communautaires. ABSTRACTThe demands of citizen groups are at the origin of the development of midwifery services in Quebec. Since the opening of the first birth centres in 1994, the parents’ committees have been involved in the organisation of midwifery services. Nearly thirty years after the first midwifery services were established, this research explores the perceptions of parents, midwives and birth assistants concerning the involvement of parents’ committees in the organization of midwifery services. Four main functions of the parents’ committees are highlighted: (1) the organization of community activities (2) the promotion of the midwifery method (3) the evaluation and organization of midwifery services (4) representations supporting the rights and interests of pregnant women. This research highlights the diversity of functions played by parents’ committees, which go beyond the role of organizing community activities.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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".