Intimate business: woman-midwife relationships in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both parturient women and midwives appear to want both intimacy and business, the personal and professional, in their relationships with one another; however, on balance, for women, the scales are slightly more tipped towards intimacy and for midwives, towards business. In 1994, with the passing of the Midwifery Act, Ontario midwives began to practise as autonomous, regulated health professionals with their own college of midwives. One of the principal goals of the Ontario midwifery model is the development of a relationship between the birthing woman and midwife. This research explores the meaning of this relationship drawing upon the insights of over 80 women and midwives, as expressed in focus groups and in-depth interviews. For many midwives, the support of communities of women, friends, family, midwives or medical colleagues is crucial for the effective care of birthing women, their own loved ones and themselves. Midwives recognize the need to balance their working and personal lives. Although childbearing women experience the woman-midwife relationship in diverse ways, most of them highly value this connection and indicate that a positive rapport supports the care they receive. Women want sensitive and competent care with midwives they respect and like. Women project onto midwives relationship roles that they need or come to desire: for example, friend, sister, mother, auntie, conjugal partner, teacher, or professional. For some women the relationship is primarily a contractual one, with mutual responsibilities. For others, the relationship acts as a catalyst in their growth and empowerment. Midwives, for their part, want meaningful relationships that support women and make their work worthwhile and enjoyable. They wish for the holistic well-being of women and their babies, and delight in seeing women develop confidence in their abilities to birth, parent, question authority and make decisions about their care. A close correspondence between a woman's values and those of her midwife appears to be a strong connecting force. When this synergy is absent, it is a greater challenge for midwives to establish a relationship, and their ability to support women's choices can be affected.
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 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".