MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210386587 · doi:10.1177/08404704211067659

An environmental scan of Indigenous Patient Navigator programs in Ontario

2022· article· en· W4210386587 on OpenAlexaffabout
Claire Hiscock, Sterling Stutz, Angela Mashford‐Pringle, Sharon Tan, Bryanna Scott, Lyric Oblin-Moses, Christine Skura

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural Competency in Health Care
Canadian institutionsLakehead UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousHealth careBusinessHealthcare systemMedicineNursingMedical emergencyPolitical scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Indigenous people in Canada continue to experience barriers accessing healthcare services including systemic racism and disproportionate healthcare disparities. Indigenous Patient Navigators (IPNs) and programs may mitigate these barriers by providing culturally safe care and support for Indigenous patients and their families navigating healthcare systems. Unfortunately, few IPNs and IPN programs exist in Ontario. We conducted an environmental scan of IPN resources and programs in Canada. Our aim was to determine evaluation frameworks, training, responsibilities of IPNs, and current IPN programs in Canada. We found 97 web sites or documents that were gathered between January and March 2021. We offer gaps in knowledge uncovered during the environmental scan. We conclude with recommendations for the implementation of IPN programs. Indigenous patient navigators have the potential to improve Indigenous healthcare experiences. Specific and sustained action is required to improve and create an equitable health system for Indigenous people across 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.015
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicCultural Competency in Health CareFrench-language works237,207