Cultural Safety: A Framework for Interactions between Aboriginal Patients and Canadian Family Medicine Practitioners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current approaches for non-Aboriginal family medicine practitioners encountering Aboriginal patients are based in cultural sensitivity, which is an inadequate model to satisfy the obligation of family medicine residents and physicians to Aboriginal health in Canada. In this paper, we advocate for the adoption of a cultural safety approach as a superior method for training family medicine residents in interactions with Aboriginal patients. Family medicine programs can integrate cultural safety into their curriculum by teaching residents about the colonial history of Aboriginal people to foster understanding of power imbalances. This knowledge can then be used to help family medicine residents learn to identify their own biases that may affect the care of Aboriginal patients. By advocating for family medicine practitioners to use cultural safety to challenge their own concepts of culture and to address their own worldviews, patient encounters between non-Aboriginal family physicians and Aboriginal patients may be made safer and more productive.
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 | 0.023 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.051 | 0.068 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".