COMPLETING THE CIRCLE: TOWARDS THE ACHIEVEMENT OF IND-EQUITY- A CULTURALLY RELEVANT HEALTH EQUITY MODEL BY/FOR INDIGENOUS POPULATIONS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health equity is defined in ways that espouse values of social justice and benevolence and is held up as an ideal state achievable by all. However, there remains a troubling gap in health outcomes between Indigenous Peoples and other Canadians. Public health stakeholders aspire to ‘close the gap’ and ‘level the gradient’ to reduce inequities though the implementation of various health equity focused strategies. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada echoes this objective and calls for self-determining structural reform to address health inequity for Indigenous Peoples. This paper proposes an IND-equity model as a reconciliation inspired response that upholds Indigenous self-determination and is informed by diverse Indigenous ways of knowing. When adopting this model, the goal is to complete the circle and foster wholistic balance. Further development and implementation of an IND-equity model requires advocacy by all health practitioners. Nurses hold potential to lead and engage in structural reform through an Indigenous health ally role.
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 | 0.037 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.070 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".