Discerning Success of Indigenous Health Students in Community-based Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, there has been a shift in Canadian healthcare education. In some regions where access to healthcare education may be limited, post-secondary educational institutions have partnered with local Indigenous groups to provide community-based healthcare educational programs to attract and support Indigenous students. The purpose of this study was to explore how members of a community with a community-based healthcare program describe student success and the factors that influence it. As part of a qualitative study, eight participants from a northern Canadian community were interviewed about their descriptions of success, and its influencing factors in a community-based healthcare program. Findings were categorized under a core theme (courage) and categorical themes: nurturing the learning, owning the learning, and discerning success for learning. Conclusions of the study were: 1) students need courage to overcome fears and barriers related to post-secondary education; 2) student success is nurtured through a whole-person approach; 3) student success is fostered through intentional support by community members; 4) a key element of student success is learning to believe in oneself; and 5) individual student success is best understood as a collective community success.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| 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".