MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3020789915 · doi:10.1891/crnr-d-19-00091

Two-Spirit Identity and Indigenous Conceptualization of Gender and Sexuality: Implications for Nursing Practice

2020· article· en· W3020789915 on OpenAlexaff
Leah Carrier, Jessy Dame, Jennifer Lane

Bibliographic record

VenueCreative Nursing · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityQuest University Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousConceptualizationHuman sexualityTerminologyIdentity (music)Sexual orientationSociologyGender studiesNursing practicePsychologySocial psychologyNursingMedicineAestheticsLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The word Two-Spirit is an umbrella term that is used to describe Indigenous peoples who are diverse in terms of their sexual orientation and gender identity, though community-specific definitions and roles for gender and sexual orientation are more extensive and varied. While the terminology of Two-Spirit is recent in its development, Indigenous conceptualizations of diverse gender identities, roles, and sexual orientations have existed since time immemorial and provide important insights into how cultural safety can be incorporated into caring practices. The purpose of this article is to introduce readers to the term Two-Spirit and to provide a broad overview of Indigenous conceptualizations of gender, sexuality, and spirit, to address implications for the nursing profession, and to outline potential applications of this knowledge in practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.044
Scholarly communication0.0050.008
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.348 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations32
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCreative NursingSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207