MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2953740127 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v9n9p123

Adaawk: Thinking and being in our hearts--Sharing the reflections of Otsin, Gitxsan rural indigenous nursing practice

2019· article· en· W2953740127 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Sheila Blackstock

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicService-Learning and Community Engagement
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers UniversityUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousPreceptorTotemCommunity of practiceNursingCultural safetyPedagogyCommunity practiceNursing practiceSociologyMedicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adaawk is oral history shared through the reflections of the first offering of a Gitxsan rural nursing practice course in follow up to the publication Otsin: Sharing the spirit of an indigenous nursing practice course development. In the spirit of adaawk, the Gitxsan’s reflections of the Gitxsan nursing practice course are themed using the metaphor of a totem pole. Each concept, and partnerships are integral to the development of a totem that reflects the adaawk. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate how the co-creation of relational concepts with the community strengthens preceptor, student and community partnerships for improved preceptor support and student learning outcomes. The author’s reflections demonstrate how the rural Gitxsan nursing practice experience informs the co-creation of cultural safety knowledge. Further, the experience provides a safe forum for students to practice cultural safety and relational practice. It allows students to co-create innovative patient outcomes within rural and community nursing practice context reflecting a two-eyed seeing approach. Students give back to communities through facilitated student placements in leadership/community health nursing for a fourth year nursing practice project with Gitxsan and rural communities in follow up to their third year practice. Authentic community partnerships and co-creation are foundational to enacting relational practice to nursing practice course development, consultation, and cultural safety practice. Learning outcomes of the course are revised to strengthen the parts of the totem and ultimately the essence of adaawk.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.199
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.390 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Education and PracticeSame topicService-Learning and Community EngagementFrench-language works237,207