Supporting Pregnant Persons: The Benefits of Opening a Birth Centre in London, Ontario (Dynamic Doulas of London)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of our project was to create a pitch to petition for the construction of a birth centre in London, Ontario and to summarize the benefits it would have on pregnant persons, doulas, and midwives. The benefits of a birth centre were supported with detailed research and statistics in a PowerPoint pitch intended for city council. Definitions were outlined to ensure the audience would understand the roles of doulas and midwives without any misinformation. Additional supporting details were included in a brochure for each audience member. As the buy-in from midwives was essential for our project, we also created a survey to assess the opinions of local midwives on a birth centre. Our findings indicate that 93% of midwives are interested in a birth centre in London, and 87.5% would bring their clients there. Our research efforts revealed that birth centres significantly improve maternal and infant health outcomes in low-risk births. Our team recommends that this proposal for a birth centre be presented to the Ontario government to obtain funding - roughly $4 million in construction costs and $1.5 million in operation costs. Based on midwife feedback, the birth centre should be located at 874 Commissioners Rd E due to its accessibility and proximity to Victoria Hospital. Including additional programs in the birth centre, such as breastfeeding classes and infant massages, is also recommended to benefit patients and generate income to support the birth centre’s operation. Overall, we found a dire need for a birth centre in London to improve birthing autonomy and offer a centralized location for local midwives and doulas.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 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; 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".