“They Are Worth Their Weight in Gold”: Families and Clinicians’ Perspectives on the Role of First Nations Health Workers in Paediatric Burn Care in Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Burns affect Australia's First Nations children more than other Australian children, they also experience longer lengths of stay in tertiary burns units and face barriers in accessing burn aftercare treatment. Data sets from two studies were combined whereby 19 families, 11 First Nations Health Worker (FNHW) and 56 multidisciplinary burn team members from across Australia described the actual or perceived role of FNHW in multidisciplinary burn care. Data highlighted similarities between the actual role of FNHW as described by families and as described by FNHW such as enabling cultural safety and advocacy. In contrast, a disconnect between the actual experience of First Nations families and health workers and that as perceived by multidisciplinary burn team members was evident. More work is needed to understand the impact of this disconnect and how to address it.
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 | 0.021 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".