How can international teams practice respectful knowledge sharing?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this session is to review current frameworks for engaging in international midwifery work (for education, service provision, donation of services and equipment, consultancies).We will also review the preparation involved for approaching international work in a respectful manner, involving mutually respectful partnership building, sustained capacity building, and intellectual exchange. Examples from global health projects in Tanzania, Burundi, Jamaica and South Sudan will be presented e.g., (teaching emergency skills & HIV management, teaching respectful maternity care).Biographical Sketch (200 words) / Biographie (200 mots): Dr. Karline Wilson-Mitchell DNP, MSN, CNM, RN, RM has practiced midwifery in the US and Canada since 1992 in Florida, North Carolina, Georgia, Ontario and Northern Quebec (Nunavik). She has taught in the MEP at Ryerson University since 2008. She also serves on the Canadian Association of Midwifery Educators (the Board and Accreditation Committee). She is a member of the American College of Nurse-Midwives (Division of Global health and Midwives of Color Committee). Her doctoral studies placed a heavy emphasis on midwifery education. And her capstone project focused on perceptions of Jamaican midwives of barriers to delivery of respectful maternity care. Karlineu2019s advocacy for vulnerable families propelled her into global health and health policy research. Sheu2019s participated with Tanzanian and Zambian midwives in the ICM Twinning Project. Sheu2019s also volunteered in Jamaica, Tanzania and Burundi. As a CAM consultant she has collaborated with the Tanzania Midwives Association in an intellectual partnership that produced set of workshops and companion facilitator and participantsu2019 manuals to deliver respectful maternity care content to over 170 midwives in the Lake and Western Zones of Tanzania. She is currently working with the South Sudanese midwives to develop a tutoru2019s manual to deliver their new three-year curriculum
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".