Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cultural safety broadens and transforms the discourse on culture and health inequities as experienced by diverse populations. PURPOSE: To critically analyze cultural safety in terms of its clarity, simplicity, generality, accessibility, and importance. KEY ISSUES: Whilst the clarity and generality of cultural safety remain contentious, there is emerging evidence of its capacity to promote a more critical discourse on culture, health, and health care inequities and how they are shaped by historical, political, and socioeconomic circumstances. IMPLICATIONS: Cultural safety promotes a more critical and inclusive perspective of culture. As an analytical lens in occupational therapy practice and research, it has the potential to reveal and generate broader understandings of occupation and health from individuals or groups in society who are traditionally silenced or marginalized. In relation to Aboriginal peoples, it clearly situates health and health inequities within the context of their colonial, socioeconomic, and political past and present.
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 | 0.065 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.142 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.043 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".