Ethical spaces and places: Indigenous cultural safety in British Columbia health care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article discusses transformations underway within Indigenous health in northern British Columbia and Canada. We highlight two organizations that are working to create ethical space and cultural safety at the intersections of Indigenous knowledge about health and wellness, Western medicine, and healthcare services for Indigenous peoples in Canada. The article argues that the cultural, organizational, and systemic transformations necessary to address the deep and ongoing health inequities experienced by Indigenous populations should be rooted in Indigenous knowledges and should prioritize Indigenous voices, values, and concepts. Cultural safety, ethical space, and Two-Eyed Seeing are three examples of ideas anchored in Indigenous knowledges that speak to relationships at the interface of different systems of knowledge. We offer some examples of how a public health knowledge translation centre and a regional health service delivering organization are actualizing these concepts in their work nationally and regionally in northern British Columbia, Canada.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.052 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".