Cultural Safety as an Outcome of a Dynamic Relational Process: The Experience of Inuit in a Mainstream Residential Addiction Rehabilitation Centre in Southern Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few addiction treatment options are available in Arctic Canada, leading many Inuit to seek treatment programs in southern cities. We conducted a case study to understand what contributes to a culturally safe experience for Inuit in a mainstream addiction rehabilitation centre in Southern Canada. We carried out more than 700 hours of participant observation, in addition to semi-structured interviews and member-checking activities with 20 Inuit residents, 18 staff and four managers. Data were analysed using an inductive interpretative process. Throughout their journey in the program, Inuit navigated through contrasting situations and feelings that we grouped under six broad themes: having Inuit peers, having limitations imposed on one's ways of being and doing, facing ignorance and misperceptions, having conversations and dialogue, facing language barriers and being in a supportive and caring environment. This study highlights how cultural safety varies according to people, context and time, and relates to developing trustful relationships.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".