The shield of professional status: Comparing internationally educated nurses’ and international medical graduates’ experiences of discrimination
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the intersecting roles of gender, ethnicity, and professional status in shaping the experiences of internationally educated health professionals in Canada. The article is based on 140 semi-structured qualitative interviews with internationally trained nurses and physicians who came to Canada within past 10 years with the intention to practice their profession. Describing the challenging process of professional integration in Canada, our participants highlighted incidents of discrimination they experienced along the way. Although some of the participants from both professional groups experienced racial discrimination, the context of those experiences differed. Physicians rarely reported instances of discrimination in communication with patients or nurses. Instead, they were concerned with instances of discrimination within their own professional group. Nurses, on the other hand, reported discrimination at the hands of patients and their families as well as racialization by physicians, management, and other nurses. We conclude our article with a reflection on the role that gender and professional status play in shaping the experiences of ethnic discrimination of internationally educated health professionals.
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.
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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it