Using Two-Eyed Seeing to Explore Interagency Collaboration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Health-care environments influence service delivery; approaches need to be more wholistic and culturally competent requiring effective interagency collaboration to bridge traditional Indigenous and mainstream health services. Despite considerable research on collaboration, the concept remains misunderstood, at worst, and formative, at best. Within the nexus of these two diverse health services, there is limited information on how collaborations could be created and sustained effectively. Purpose To explore the perspectives/experiences of collaboration of select Saskatchewan health professionals practicing across these diverse services to understand the concept from their perspectives. Methods This qualitative study explored collaboration through observation and interviews to elicit perspectives (two-eyed seeing) of health professionals working within the context of a traditional-mainstream health services partnership. Results Individual- and system-level factors and accountabilities are needed for successful cross-cultural collaboration and can be enabled by embedding the virtues of Indigenous and values of mainstream health services along with building and maintaining relationships, valuing difference, creating supportive environments and wholistic approaches, having the right people at the table, and making a change for impactful outcomes. Conclusion Findings support the need for implementing contextually relevant collaborative practice models for productive, wholistic health services. Two-eyed seeing provides the ability to capture and catalyze the tremendous value and strengths of both worlds, potentiating complementary aspects to meet the needs of clients and 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 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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".