MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

“Rewriting” Cultural Safety Within the Postcolonial and Postnational Feminist Project

2003· article· en· W2328932336 on OpenAlexaffabout
Joan M. Anderson, JoAnn Perry, Connie Blue, Annette J. Browne, Angela Henderson, Koushambhi Basu Khan, Sheryl Reimer‐Kirkham, M. Judith Lynam, Pat Semeniuk, Vicki Smye

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Nursing Science · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Security, and Conflict
Canadian institutionsTrinity Western UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of VictoriaVancouver Coastal Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousSociocultural evolutionSociologyCritical reflectionCultural safetyPostcolonialism (international relations)Critical theoryReflection (computer programming)Gender studiesAnthropologyPolitical sciencePedagogyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concept of cultural safety, developed by indigenous nurses in the postcolonial climate of New Zealand, has not been widely examined in North America. In this article we explicate the theoretical and methodological issues that came to the forefront in our attempts to use this concept in our research with different populations in Canada. We argue that this concept prompts us to "think critically" about ourselves and our patients, and to be mindful of our own sociocultural, economic, and historical location. This critical reflection has implications for how we live, relate to one another, and practice in our various professional disciplines. On the basis of our findings, we discuss how the concept might be rewritten within a critical postcolonial and postnational feminist discourse.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.231

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0260.083
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0020.014
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.360 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations259
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Nursing ScienceSame topicGender, Security, and ConflictFrench-language works237,207