Health Equity, Aboriginal Peoples and Occupational Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In Canada, Aboriginal peoples are affected by colonial relations of power that result in poor health outcomes. Despite occupational therapists' efforts to work in a safe and competent manner with people experiencing challenges to participating in daily life, Western healthcare models reflect values that often undermine Aboriginal peoples' health and well-being. PURPOSE: Meaningful, effective, and culturally appropriate healthcare practices cannot be fully implemented by occupational therapists without an ongoing and critical examination of occupational therapy's foundational belief systems. Only a critical examination of these foundational belief systems will enable occupational therapists to take action towards addressing these inequities, which is an important step in moving towards culturally safe care. KEY ISSUES: Canadian health professions, including occupational therapy, have the potential to create positive change at a systems level through the critical exploration of underlying professional assumptions. IMPLICATIONS: To advance dialogue about Aboriginal peoples' health, occupational therapists must engage in exploration of their profession's underlying theoretical concepts or risk participating in the perpetuation of health inequities for already at-risk 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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".