Rethinking cultural safety while waiting to do fieldwork: Methodological implications for nursing research*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of culture has been widely applied as an explanatory concept within health care, often within a framework representing culture as a fixed, reified entity, with cultural groups existing in a binary sense vis-;-vis mainstream culture. However, if our scholarship is to generate knowledge that addresses longstanding patterns of inclusion and exclusion along lines such as race, ethnicity, class, and gender, interpretive frames are needed that account for culture as embedded in fields of power relations; as mediated by social forces such as economics, politics, and historical patterns of oppression and colonization; and as being constantly renegotiated. In this article we trace a series of theoretical explorations, centered on the concept of cultural safety, with corresponding methodological implications, engaged in during preparation for an intensive period of fieldwork to study the hospitalization and help-seeking experiences of diverse ethnocultural populations.
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 | 0.328 | 0.328 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".