Visibility and Voice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, cultural safety (CS) is emerging as a theoretical and practice lens to orient health care services to meet the needs of Aboriginal people. Evidence suggests Aboriginal peoples' encounters with health care are commonly negative, and there is concern that these experiences can contribute to further adverse health outcomes. In this article, we report findings based on participatory action research drawing on Indigenous methods. Our project goal was to interrogate practices within one hospital to see whether and how CS for Aboriginal patients could be improved. Interviews with Aboriginal patients who had accessed hospital services were conducted, and responses were collated into narrative summaries. Using interlocking analysis, findings revealed a number of processes operating to produce adverse health outcomes. One significant outcome is the production of structural violence that reproduces experiences of institutional trauma. Positive culturally safe experiences, although less frequently reported, were described as interpersonal interactions with feelings visibility and therefore, treatment as a "human being."
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".