Adaawk: Thinking and being in our hearts--Sharing the reflections of Otsin, Gitxsan rural indigenous nursing practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".