The United States Does <i>CAIR</i> About Cultural Safety: Examining Cultural Safety Within Indigenous Health Contexts in Canada and the United States
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This article examines the concept and use of the term cultural safety in Canada and the United States. DESIGN: To examine the uptake of cultural awareness, cultural sensitivity, cultural competence, and cultural safety between health organizations in Canada and the United States, we reviewed position statements/policies of health care associations. FINDINGS: The majority of selected health associations in Canada include cultural safety within position statements or organizational policies; however, comparable U.S. organizations focused on cultural sensitivity and cultural competence. DISCUSSION: Through the work of the Center for American Indian Resilience, we demonstrate that U.S. researchers engage with the tenets of cultural safety-despite not using the language. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that health care providers and health researchers consider the tenets of cultural safety. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: To address health disparities between American Indian populations and non-American Indians, we urge the adoption of the term and tenets of cultural safety in the United States.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it