Building Collaboration: A Scoping Review of Cultural Competency and Safety Education and Training for Healthcare Students and Professionals in Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phenomenon: This scoping literature review summarizes current Canadian health science education and training aimed to lessen health gaps between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples. APPROACH: Keyword searches of peer-reviewed and gray literature databases, websites, and resources recommended by local Aboriginal community members identified 1,754 resources. Using specific inclusion and exclusion criteria, 26 resources relevant to education and training of healthcare professionals and students in Canada were selected. Information included self-assessment for cultural competency/safety skills, advocacy within Canadian healthcare, and descriptions of current programs and training approaches. FINDINGS: In spite of increasing awareness and use of cultural competency and safety concepts, few programs have been successfully implemented. Insights: A concerted effort among health science education and training bodies to develop integrated and effective programs could result in comprehensive processes that hasten the Canadian culturally safe healthcare provision, thus reducing the gaps among 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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it