A framework to assess cultural safety in Australian public policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of cultural safety (CS) has been developed as a critical perspective on healthcare provided to Indigenous service users in neo-colonial countries such as New Zealand, Australia and Canada. Unlike other frameworks for culturally competent healthcare, a CS approach recognizes impacts of colonization and power inequalities on Indigenous peoples and asks how these may manifest in healthcare settings. It has been argued that CS thinking is suited to critical analysis of public policy, but there has been limited work in this direction. Drawing on literature on CS in Australian healthcare, we defined a CS framework consisting of five concepts: reflexivity, dialogue, reducing power differences, decolonization and regardful care. Our research examined whether and in what terms this framework could be adapted as a tool for critical analysis of Australian public policy as it affects Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. We used a collaborative inquiry process combining perspectives of an Aboriginal researcher and a non-Indigenous researcher. We developed a thematic analysis framework to examine how the five concepts might be reflected in contemporary writings on policy by leading Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander thinkers. We found the framework is applicable as a tool for policy analysis; bringing together key concerns raised by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders and critical concepts such as sovereignty and interface thinking. We concluded the framework is likely to be a useful tool for critical, systemic thinking about public policy as it affects Indigenous peoples and for specifying areas where performance can be improved to achieve culturally safe policy.
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 | 0.063 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".