Bibliographic record
Abstract
Promoting cultural competency in health care was examined from the Canadian perspective, and explored practice environments and educational programs for future health professionals that foster cultural awareness and support culturally sensitive care. Many of the issues raised are generic and likely to occur whenever patients' health practices and beliefs differ from conventional Western care. The main theme that emerged with respect to the practice environment was the use of a participatory action approach to foster collaboration with patients, traditional healers and the community. Successful collaboration is likely to result in a blend of ideas and perspectives from traditional health practices and conventional Western health care. With respect to education, programs need to focus on providing opportunities both in the classroom and in the clinical arena for students to work in interprofessional teams. These teams should not only comprise partners from medicine, nursing, physical therapy and other health professions but also include aboriginal paraprofessionals. Pedagogical initiatives also need to incorporate case-based formats and interactive sessions with patients and families. The principles underlying this approach: openness, mutual respect, inclusiveness, responsiveness and understanding one's roles should be fundamental to the delivery of culturally competent health care to all ethnic communities.
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 | 0.030 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".