Equity, Anti-Racism and Social Justice: Mission Statements, Vision and Values of British Columbia’s Health Delivery System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<title>Abstract</title> Background Framed by a universal healthcare philosophy, publically funded Canadian healthcare delivery organizations are presumed to provide primary care for all residents. However, despite this universal coverage, healthcare inequity is evidenced for non-dominant racialized patients and healthcare providers. Methods To examine the diversity commitments of healthcare delivery organizations in British Columbia, we analyzed mission statements, visions and values with a list of 23 health equity markers. Results Our findings reveal that health equity for racialized non-dominant communities is not prioritized in the mission, vision or value statements for 7 of the 8 healthcare delivery organizations. Conclusion The absence of these markers reaffirms that anti-racist ideologies are not conceptualized into the institutional identities of British Columbia’s healthcare delivery organizations. Further, without an anti-racism equity framework embedded into institutional identity, organizations have a limited ability to meaningfully address inequities experienced by racialized non-dominant patients and healthcare providers. We recommend that healthcare delivery organizations review and revise their guiding documents with a lens of equity, social justice and cultural safety; and to incorporate education for all healthcare leadership and staff through the lens of anti-racist pedagogy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".