Calls to Action: Truth, Reconciliation, and Indigenous Rights for Supportive Decision-Making in Healthcare
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence of health disparity and systemic barriers for Indigenous people as compared to non-Indigenous people in Canada is well documented. Nonetheless, the intersection of Indigenous patients’, family members’, and health service providers’ experiences of (dis)trust, cultural safety, and health care decision- making is not well understood. This study identified factors that are needed to promote equitable health care and improve the physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual health of Indigenous people, listening directly to the voices of those who have experienced or been witness to injustices within the care system. Drawing on a qualitative study conducted in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, this paper reports individual and focus group interviews with patients, family decision-makers, and health service providers who self-identified as Indigenous about (a) factors that hindered their health care decisional process, and (b) resources and recommendations that may help to rebuild trust and promote supportive decision-making. Identifying factors that promote supportive decision-making from the perspective of Indigenous Peoples is a first step toward addressing the health disparity gap and upholding the rights of Indigenous populations in Canada.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".