Holistic Health of Two Spirit People in Canada: A Call for Nursing Action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: In response to item 7.1 from the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls Report (2019), calling on health service providers to recognize the importance in inclusive services with and for Indigenous peoples including Two Spirit, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex, and asexual (2SLGBTQQIA) peoples, we undertook a review of the literature to identify the gaps in understanding and to better situate the health and resiliencies of Two Spirit people in Canada. Method: We conducted a review of 13 articles related to the health and wellness of the Canadian Two Spirit community. Overall, there was a dearth of Two Spirit specific health-related information. Results: Identified themes were grounded in the holistic Medicine Wheel teachings. These themes directly parallel holistic nursing in their demonstration that health is complex, and that there are many facets that make up an individuals’ health. Conclusion: Assessing the impact that colonization has had on the intersections of gender, race, sexuality, class, culture, and spirituality, Two Spirit people face unique health concerns. Considering the intersections of identity and structural barriers in place for this community, more research led by and in collaboration with the Two Spirit community is needed.
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 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| 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".