Indo-Canadian Beliefs regarding Organ Donation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context There is concern that a disproportionately high number of people of South Asian origin await transplantation in Canada. The donation rate is low in this population, and it is difficult to obtain good tissue matches. Objective To explore the values and beliefs regarding organ donation among Indo-Canadian people living in British Columbia. Design A naturalistic qualitative study was designed. Individual interviews and focus groups were held to collect data pertaining to beliefs regarding organ donation. Setting Lower Mainland of British Columbia, Canada. Participants A total of 40 Indo-Canadian persons participated; a wide range of ages, religions, and backgrounds were represented. Results The major themes that emerged from the data related to context (including family/community, religion, trust in the healthcare system, and knowledge about organ donation); and values and beliefs (including intergenerational considerations, death and dying, and the organ donation process). Participants noted that people from their community were reluctant to discuss death and related issues such as organ donation. Although there was recognition of the importance of individual decision making pertaining to organ donation, the participants believed that family and community members also should be involved. Conclusions Beliefs varied considerably among participants, and one should not make assumptions about the beliefs of any one individual based primarily on that individual's membership in an ethnocultural community.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".