Envisioning Deep Collaboration Between Psychiatry And Traditional Ways Of Knowing In A British Columbia First Nations Setting: A Personal Reflection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, I draw on my experiences of providing psychiatric outreach services to indigenous communities near Chilliwack, B.C. over the course of a two and a half year period. The principle aim of the paper is to critically examine and reflect on the concept of collaboration as it pertains to psychiatric services on Canadian First Nation communities. The hope is that doing so will inform the work of others engaged in service development and delivery in similar settings. The analysis proceeds through a combination of personal reflection and critical reading of pertinent literature. Emerging from the analysis is a tripartite conceptualization of collaboration thatrecognizes the value of structural or organizational collaboration but which, at the same time, acknowledges the possibility of and calls for a deeper level collaborative approach. A multi-level conceptualization of collaboration then is envisioned in this paper; one that encompasses the notions of collaboration at ‘deep’ and ‘ideological’ in addition to ‘surface’ levels. Barriers to the realization of such a multi-level collaboration are examined and discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".