From the margins : cultural safety from an Okanagan/Sqilxw perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research project was to examine cultural safety from an Okanagan/Sqilxw perspective. Cultural safety is a term that originated in New Zealand with the Maori people in their need to address the health disparities and power imbalances within the institution of health. As cultural safety has become adapted in practice within the Interior Region, it became necessary to examine the concept closer with peoples of the Interior. As the Syilx (Okanagan) are one of the seven First Nations located in the Interior Region, and of which I am a member, this project was primarily conducted with Okanagan/Sqilxw members of the Okanagan Indian Band. The research was guided by participatory action research and Indigenous methodologies. The analytical framework was based on the enowkinwixw, which is an Okanagan/Sqilxw decision making process that undertakes serious issues of concern in the community. In order to ground this research in community, it was equally necessary that I abide by community ethics. Therefore, an Advisory Committee, formed solely of Okanagan Indian Band members, held my research and me accountable to community. Talking Circles was how community members were brought together to break down the terms culture and safety, and to discuss what cultural safety meant to them. In analyzing the contribution from community members, it is integral for Okanagan/Sqilxw to gain cultural confidence; that is, the confidence to voice one’s or people’s concerns and direction. Further, it is cultural safety that community and mainstream healthcare must strive for. Both are an investment in a lifelong journey into one’s self.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".