Commentary: Indigenous Nursing – Learning from the Past to Strengthen the Future of Healthcare
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nurse leaders, educators and employers work to address the challenges of providing optimal care to Indigenous people and communities in Canada, which is often further complicated by geography and isolation. The Canadian Indigenous Nurses Association (CINA) has responded to the Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada through partnerships with various levels of government, including the First Nations and Inuit Health Branch of the new federal department of Indigenous Services Canada, to increase and better support Indigenous nurses in the healthcare system. Grounding nursing practice with the wisdom and strength of Indigenous knowledge, balanced with the perspectives of western ways of knowing is further facilitated when nursing students can be educated and supported closer to home. Learning in a supportive way, closer to where one lives, can allow for important family ties, cultural supports and practices to improve experiences and outcomes for students.
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 | 0.009 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.061 | 0.068 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
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".