The United States Does <i>CAIR</i> About Cultural Safety: Examining Cultural Safety Within Indigenous Health Contexts in Canada and the United States
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".