Crafting Culturally Safe Learning Spaces: A Story of Collaboration Between an Educational Institution and Two First Nation Communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a story of crafting a culturally safe learning space in the context of First Nations communities. It is told by two nurse educators working together, one who is Indigenous and one who is not. The word “crafting” is used to describe the collaborative and aesthetic process of co-constructing learning with students, community members and the environment. The relationship between the educational institution and the First Nations communities was guided by the concept of cultural safety. Cultural safety politicizes the notion of culture and disrupts the power imbalance between nurses and the people they work with. A process of collaborative conscientization was used to decolonize our institution and ourselves. This led to new possibilities of crafting an ethical learning space where Eurocentric ideologies could be dislodged from the center in order for Indigenous ways of knowing and learning to emerge. Students experienced a form of relational accountability for their learning through participation in community ceremonies and protocols. What resulted was a unique and transformative learning experience for fourth year Bachelor of Science in Nursing students offered in collaboration between an educational institution and two remote First Nations communities.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.046 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".