Examining Whiteness and Eurocanadian Discourses in the Canadian Red Cross’ Swim Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Each year, over 1 million Canadians participate in the Canadian Red Cross’ (CRC) Swim Program. Despite the increasing importance of cultural diversity in Canadian society, the CRC has yet to incorporate diversity training for this program’s Water Safety Instructors (WSIs). Through the use of critical Whiteness theory and critical discourse analysis, in this article, we examine the program’s content to assess the ways in which, if at all, it reflects mainstream, Eurocanadian and Whiteness discourses. Our analysis revealed two dominant discourses: (a) all participants should perceive risk and demonstrate leadership like Whites/Eurocanadians, and (b) behaviors that reflect White/Eurocanadian beliefs are normal and/or superior to other alternative ways of behaving. As a result of these findings, we suggest that future research should evaluate the possibility of implementing cultural safety training to equip instructors with a suitable understanding the cultural implications of aquatics programming, which may improve the program’s effectiveness for diverse Canadian 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".