Cultural Competency: An Individual or Institutional Responsibility?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AlTHOUGH the presence of African people in Nova Scotia dates back to the early 1600s (Pachai 1987), they continue to struggle for the most basic rights, including the right to culturally competent services (Etowa, Bernard, Clow & Oyinsan, in press). The recent recognition of Canada's multicultural reality is the result of significant demographic changes that have seen a substantial increase of various ethnic groups in cities and towns across the nation, changing the very fabric of Canadian society. The effects of these demographic changes are being felt throughout Canada and the Western world as a whole, as many organizations, including those that provide human services, are continually being challenged to deliver services that are appropriate and relevant to diverse groups. Schools of social work across the country have been challenged, encouraged, and supported in their efforts to address issues of culture, ethnicity, and race since the early 1990s (Christensen 1991; Zamparo, Bernard, Seebaran, Blum, Razack & DuBois, 2000). Providing culturally relevant and competent services continues to be one of the greatest challenges facing social workers in the 21st century. We posit that the need to become culturally competent in multicultural service delivery should not only focus on recent immigrants, however, but also on those people of African descent who have been here for centuries. Furthermore, we suggest that the definition of cultural competence must be expanded to include exploration of issues of oppression, power, and privilege and how these contribute to the helping relationship when culturally relevant and competent services are being delivered.
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 | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".