The Aboriginal Cultural Safety Initiative: An innovative health sciences curriculum in Ontario colleges and universities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The Aboriginal Cultural Safety Initiative (ACSI) created at Anishnawbe Health Toronto offers an innovative curriculum to address gaps in postsecondary health sciences curricula in this area for future healthcare providers. Participants: Evaluations were collected from 1,275 students in health sciences programs in colleges and universities in Ontario. Setting: Trained volunteer Aboriginal instructors were invited as guest speakers to college and university classes in various health science disciplines. Intervention: Our instructors offered a 2- to 3-hour teaching session to health sciences students that included 3 modules on the health of Aboriginal peoples: (a) The impact of colonial and postcolonial policies on social determinants of health, (b) Contemporary health determinants and health outcomes, and (c) Aboriginal concepts of health and healing practices. Outcomes: The ACSI was able to impart the intended learning objectives to a wide array of students across health sciences disciplines, as demonstrated in the student evaluations. A significant number of students reported that their knowledge of, and interest in, Aboriginal health increased substantially when compared to their prior knowledge and interest. Conclusion: The success of this program suggests that, in the absence of Aboriginal faculty members in postsecondary health sciences departments, a committed cadre of volunteer Aboriginal instructors can improve student knowledge around issues related to Aboriginal health and can influence student attitudes through the inclusion of personal experiences in the teaching session. A lack of availability in curriculum time continues to be the largest obstacle to including content on Aboriginal cultural safety in health sciences programs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".